EPA/600/R-12/034
January 2012
LITERATURE REVIEW OF REMEDIATION METHODS FOR
PCBS IN BUILDINGS
by
Environmental Health & Engineering, Inc.
Needham, Massachusetts
Contract No. EP-C-10-043
for
Zhishi Guo
Project Officer
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Disclaimer
The work reported in this document was funded by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) under Contract No. EP-C-10-043 to Environmental Health & Engineering, Inc.
It has been subjected to the Agency’s peer and administrative reviews and has been approved for
publication as an EPA document. Any opinions expressed in this report are those of the
author(s) and do not, necessarily, reflect the official positions and policies of the EPA. Any
mention of products or trade names does not constitute recommendation for use by the EPA.
ii
Abstract
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) had numerous commercial applications before they were
banned in the U.S. in 1978. Those uses included the addition of PCBs to building construction
materials, such as adhesives, paint, and particularly caulk used to seal components of a building
envelope. Growing awareness of this issue has led to an increase in the need to demonstrate
compliance with current regulations for PCBs within buildings.
This literature review contains a description and analysis of existing methods for management of
PCBs in construction materials. Information on the strengths and limitations, efficacy, cost, and
byproducts of each remediation method is presented, where available. The report is based upon a
comprehensive review and synthesis of conference proceedings, and technical reports by
government and commercial organizations.
Numerous methods for abatement, i.e., reducing the amount of PCBs in building materials, and
mitigation, i.e., limiting the release of PCBs from building materials, are described in the
literature. The abatement techniques involve removal of PCB-containing materials with
mechanical or hand tools, or application of chemicals intended to either extract or degrade PCBs.
Techniques for mitigation of PCB impacts in buildings involve engineering controls such as
encapsulation and ventilation that limit PCB levels in occupied parts of a building. Mitigation
was also achieved through administrative controls, which were typically guided by a site-specific
assessment of risk, and included reassignment of space use and implementation of an operation
and maintenance plan for building-related PCBs.
Abatement through removal of PCB-containing materials and numerous mitigation methods
were generally reported to be effective for attaining compliance with current PCB regulations,
The efficacy of chemical degradation and extraction techniques for PCB concentrations
encountered in caulk and other products manufactured with PCBs has not yet been
demonstrated in the literature. Most reports indicate that the greatest control of PCBs in building
materials is obtained when multiple remediation methods are employed. The selection of
remediation methods for a particular building should be determined on a case by case basis. The
costs of managing PCB-containing building materials can be substantial, an observation that
underscores the importance of understanding site-specific conditions, establishing practical
remediation goals, and selecting the most appropriate remediation methods.
iii
Foreword
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with
protecting the Nation’s land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national
environmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a
compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural systems to support and
nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA’s research program is providing data and technical
support for solving environmental problems today and building a science knowledge base
necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our
health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency’s center for
investigation of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks
from pollution that threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory’s
research program is on methods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of
pollution to air, land, water, and subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water
systems; remediation of contaminated sites, sediments and ground water; prevention and control
of indoor air pollution; and restoration of ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates with both public and
private sector partners to foster technologies that reduce the cost of compliance and to anticipate
emerging problems. NRMRL’s research provides solutions to environmental problems by:
developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve the environment; advancing
scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy decisions; and providing
the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of environmental
regulations and strategies at the national, state, and community levels.
This publication has been produced as a continued effort to support the EPA's mission of
protecting human health and the environment. It is published and made available by EPA’s
Office of Research and Development to assist the user community and to link researchers with
their clients.
Cynthia Sonich-Mullin, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
iv
taBlE of contEnts �
1.0 IntroductIon......................................................................................................................4 �
1.1 ScoPE AND oRGANIZAtIoN oF tHE LItERAtURE REvIEw ...................................................4 �
1.2 BAckGRoUND ....................................................................................................................5 �
1.3 REGULAtoRy coNtExt ......................................................................................................6 �
1.4 ENvIRoNMENtAL HEALtH coNtExt....................................................................................9 �
1.5 SUMMARy .........................................................................................................................10 �
2.0 Summary of LIterature Search.......................................................................................11 �
2.1 APPRoAcH ........................................................................................................................11 �
2.2 LItERAtURE SEARcH RESULtS..........................................................................................13 �
2.3 PcB-coNtAINING BUILDING MAtERIALS............................................................................14 �
2.4 REMEDIAtIoN MEtHoDS....................................................................................................15 �
3.0 remedIatIon methodS .......................................................................................................21 �
3.1 SoURcE REMovAL ............................................................................................................21 �
3.2 SoURcE MoDIFIcAtIoN.....................................................................................................30 �
3.3 ENGINEERING coNtRoLS..................................................................................................36 �
3.4 ADMINIStRAtIvE coNtRoLS .............................................................................................42 �
4.0 concLuSIonS and recommendatIonS .............................................................................48 �
4.1 PcBS IN BUILDING MAtERIALS ..........................................................................................48 �
4.2 REMEDIAtIoN MEtHoDS....................................................................................................49 �
4.3 REcoMMENDAtIoNS .........................................................................................................52 �
5.0 referenceS........................................................................................................................53 �
aPPendIX a ................................................................................................................................64 �
LISt of aPPendIceS
Appendix A: Electronic Indices of Scientific and technical Publications Queried
LISt of boXeS
Box 1.1 40 cFR §761.3 – Definitions of PcB waste �
Box 3.1 Mitigation Efforts Described by Bent et al. (1994, 2000) �
LISt of tabLeS
table 1.1 Definitions of clean-Up Related terms from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
table 1.2 Summary of Disposal options and clearance criteria for PcB wastes Specified in code
of Federal Regulations title 40 Section 761 �
table 1.3 Public Health targets for PcBs in School Indoor Air (ng/m3) Suggested by EPA
table 2.1 keywords Used for Literature Search
table 2.2 List of References by Literature type
table 2.3 PcB-containing Building Materials and Exposure Media
table 2.4 Description of Remediation Methods
table 2.5 key Elements of a typical work Plan for Mitigation of PcB-containing Building Materials
table 3.1 Source Removal Methods for Abatement of PcB-containing Building Materials
table 3.2 Summary of tools and Methods for caulk Removal
table 3.3 Remediation costs Reported by EH&E
table 3.4 Summary of Source Modification Methods for Abatement of PcB-containing Building Materials
table 3.5 Remediation cost Analysis of concrete (porous) and Metal (non-porous) Surface coated with PcB-containing Paint
table 3.6 Summary of Engineering controls Used for Mitigation of PcB-containing Building Materials
table 3.7 � Summary of Implementability, Effectiveness, and Aesthetics of various Encapsulants
table 4.2 Summary of Abatement and Mitigation Methods
2
LISt of fIGureS
Figure 2.1 Framework for Methods to Remediate PcBs in Building Materials
Figure 3.1 Photograph of PcB-containing caulk Removal Using Hand tools
Figure 3.2 Removal of concrete Adjacent to Former Seam of PcB caulking Laid Between Pre-Formed concrete Panels
Figure 3.3 cAPSUR® Application on PcB-contaminated concrete Surface
Figure 3.4 Panel A —Photograph of Pre-Installment of Mini-walls, Panel B—Photograph of Post-Installment of Mini-walls
Figure 3.5 Indoor PcB concentrations in Response to the various Mitigation Methods
LISt of abbreVIatIonS and acronymS
AcGIH American conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
AIHA American Industrial Hygiene Association
AMtS Activated Metal treatment System
ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air conditioning Engineers
AStM American Society for testing and Materials
AwMA Air and waste Management Association
BtS Bimetallic treatment System
cDc centers for Disease control and Prevention
cFR code of Federal Regulations
DoD Department of Defense
EcP Electrochemical Peroxidation Process
EH&E Environmental Health & Engineering, Inc.
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
HEPA High Efficiency Particulate Air
HvAc Heating, ventilation, and Air conditioning
ISES International Society for Exposure Science
ISEE International Society for Environmental Epidemiology
ISIAQ International Society for Indoor Air Quality
ng/µL nanograms per microliter
ng/kg
ng/m3
NASA
NIoSH
PcB
PPE
ppm
Pvc
RcRA
SEtAc
tScA
UcF
UNEP
voc
ZvM
µg/m3
nanograms per kilogram
nanograms per cubic meter
National Aeronautics & Space Administration
National Institute for occupational Safety and Health
Polychlorinated Biphenyl
Personal Protective Equipment
parts per million
Polyvinyl chloride
Resource conservation & Recovery Act
Society for Environmental toxicology and chemistry
toxic Substances control Act
University of central Florida
United Nations Environment Programme
volatile organic compound
Zero-valent Magnesium
micrograms per cubic meter
µg/L micrograms per liter
3
▲
1.0 introduction �
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are a class of persistent organochlorine chemicals that formerly
had numerous commercial applications in the United States. Used primarily as an insulator
in electrical equipment, PCBs were also a component of construction materials such as caulk,
adhesives, and paints. Concentrations of PCBs in building materials frequently exceed levels
authorized by U.S. regulations. A wide range of public and commercial buildings have been
identified as being at risk of having PCB-containing materials.
In September 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provided initial guidance to
property managers, particularly administrators of schools, on approaches to managing potential
exposures to PCBs in building materials (EPA, 2011a). The guidance from EPA complements the
requirements in Title 40 Part 761 of the Code of Federal Regulations for characterization and disposal
of waste materials that contain PCBs. Managing potential exposures to PCBs and complying with
regulatory requirements are priorities for property managers, and interest has grown about methods
for remediation of PCBs in building materials.
Environmental Health & Engineering (EH&E) was retained by the EPA National Risk Management
Laboratory to review the literature on remediation methods for PCB-containing building materials.
The purpose of this report is to help EPA and other stakeholders identify the approaches in use
today to control release of PCBs from building materials, protect public health, and meet regulatory
criteria. The review of the literature is not intended as a guide to select the optmal method to remediate
PCBs in a particlar buiding, but rather to compile information on the performance of current
methods and to provide recommendtons for furher development of remediaton methods
for PCBs in building materials.
1.1 ScoPe and orGanIzatIon of the LIterature reVIew
The scope of this report includes methods for remediation of non-liquid PCBs in building
materials, although the topic of liquid PCBs in fluorescent light ballasts is also discussed.
Following terminology suggested by the EPA, remediation in the context of this report refers to
removing PCBs from building materials or limiting their migration from sources in buildings.
The remediation methods are divided into two categories – abatement and mitigation.
Abatement refers to reducing the amount of PCBs in building materials and more broadly
includes remediation methods that involve removing, handling or treating source materials.
Mitigation refers to controlling exposure to PCBs released from building materials and more
broadly includes methods that do not involve handling or direct manipulation of source
materials. These working definitions are consistent with the clean-up related terminology
suggested by EPA, which is reproduced in Table 1.1.
4
tabLe 1.1 Definitions of clean-Up Related terms from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
term
definition from ePa
abatement
Reducing the degree or intensity of, or eliminating, pollution
mitigation
Measures taken to reduce adverse impacts on the environment
remediation
1) cleanup or other methods used to remove or contain a toxic spill or hazardous materials
from a Superfund site. 2) For the Asbestos Hazardous Emergency Response program,
abatement methods including evaluation, repair, enclosure, encapsulation, or removal of
greater than 3 linear feet or square feet of asbestos-containing materials from building
Source: EPA, 2011b
The remediation methods considered in this report are applicable to meeting regulatory standards for
PCBs and for managing potential exposures to PCBs in building materials. The methods covered here
also include both interim and permanent measures for managing PCBs in buildings.
To gather information on remediation methods within the scope of this review, a comprehensive
search was conducted of all publicly available information from peer-reviewed scientific and
technical journals, conference proceedings, reports by the U.S. federal and state governments, reports
by academic institutions, and reports by international organizations. The search included documents
published or released by June, 2011. The documents and resources identified by the literature search
were reviewed, culled, and flagged for follow-up searches as warranted. These additional leads were
investigated, thereby supplementing the initial list with new documents until a complete survey of
the current literature was obtained.
1.2 backGround
PCBs comprise a class of 209 structurally-related chemicals (or congeners) that were widely used as a
dielectric fluid in capacitors, transformers, and other electrical equipment beginning as early as 1929
(Rall, 1975). PCBs are well-known human and ecological hazards (ATSDR, 2000). Manufacturing,
importation, and most uses of PCBs in the U.S. were prohibited under the Toxic Substances Control
Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 2601 et seq. 1976). Federal regulations that establish authorized uses and disposal
practices for PCBs are stated in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 761 (40 CFR §761).
In addition to their use in electrical equipment, over 75 million kilograms of PCBs were
reported to have been sold in the U.S. from 1958 through 1971 for use as plasticizers or as a
component of numerous industrial products (NIOSH, 1975). These uses of PCBs were in “openend” applications that include rubbers, synthetic resins, carbonless copy paper, wax extenders,
cutting oils, pesticide extenders, inks, textile coatings, and other products (Hesse, 1975; EPA,
1976). Construction materials reported to have been manufactured with PCBs include caulk,
adhesives, paints, floor finishes, and other items (see Section 2.3 for additional information). In
this report, materials that are known or believed to have been manufactured with PCBs will be
referred to as primary sources.
5
PCBs have also been used as an insulating liquid in ballasts for fluorescent lights. Older light ballasts
filled with PCBs continue to be used in some public school buildings. Certain types of ballasts may
leak upon reaching the end of their useful life (Staiff et al., 1974), providing a potential source of
exposure to PCBs in buildings. Although non-liquid PCBs in building materials is the focus of this
literature review, remediation of PCB-containing insulating fluids in light ballasts is discussed briefly.
A large number of buildings may be constructed with PCB-containing materials based on current
information about PCB uses in building products. Over 800,000 government and non-government
buildings that comprise 12 billion square feet of interior space are estimated to have been constructed
between 1958 and 1971 (EIA, 2008). In addition, forty-six percent (46%) of schools in the U.S.
(approximately 55,000 schools) are estimated to have been built during that time based on results
from a survey of indoor air quality programs in schools (Moglia et al., 2006).
PCBs are persistent in the environment and are known to migrate from primary source materials to
adjacent materials in buildings. Elevated concentrations of PCBs have been found in brick, mortar,
concrete, foam board, and other items that are adjacent to primary source materials (Coghlan et al.,
2002). The upper range of PCB levels in these materials has been reported to be approximately 5,000
ppm. Building materials that accumulate PCBs released from primary sources will be referred to as
secondary sources in this report.
PCBs in building materials can also migrate to direct human exposure media including soil, indoor
dust, and indoor air. PCB contamination in soil has been reported to extend up to a meter away
from building envelopes constructed with PCB-containing caulk (Herrick et al., 2007). Remediation
of building-related PCBs in soil has involved excavation of soil to a depth of two feet or more (TRC
Environmental, 2010). Further discussion of soil contaminated with building-related PCBs is beyond
the scope of this report. Settled dust in buildings constructed with PCB-containing caulk has also
been reported to be enriched in PCBs (Chang et al., 2002). Analyses of aggregate exposure to PCBs
indicate that indoor air can be the predominant pathway of exposure to PCBs in building materials
(EPA, 2009c).
1.3 reGuLatory conteXt
The regulations in 40 CFR§761 define authorized uses of PCBs and types of PCB wastes for
both liquid and non-liquid PCBs. The use of PCBs in fluorescent light ballasts notwithstanding,
regulations for non-liquid uses of PCBs set forth in 40 CFR§761.3 are of greatest relevance to PCBs in
building materials. Because PCBs in building materials are generally not an authorized use according
to 40 CFR§761, achieving PCB levels that meet regulatory or risk-based criteria is therefore an
important driver of remediation programs for impacted buildings. Background information on these
driving forces is provided here; additional information is presented later in Sections 2 and 3.
Once a building material that contains an unauthorized use of PCBs is designated for disposal, the
material is subject to classification as either PCB Bulk Product Waste or PCB Remediation Waste.
The definitions of PCB Bulk Product Waste and PCB Remediation Waste are reproduced from
6
40 CFR§761.3 in Box 1.1. In brief, materials that were manufactured with PCBs, and that contain
PCBs at levels equal to or greater than 50 ppm are subject to the requirements for PCB Bulk Product
Waste. Materials that contain PCBs as a result of a release from primary sources are subject to the
regulations for PCB Remediation Waste. These materials may include waste from clean-up activities,
environmental media such as soil, and building components such as concrete and brick. In general,
primary sources are typically identified as Bulk Product Waste and secondary sources are commonly
determined to be PCB Remediation Waste. However, distinguishing bulk product waste from
remediation waste can be challenging for some materials. Additional information on these terms can
be found in Box 1.1.
box 1.1 40 cFR §761.3 – Definitions of PcB waste
>> PCB bulk product waste means waste derived from manufactured products containing PcBs in a non-liquid state, at
any concentration where the concentration at the time of designation for disposal was ≥50 ppm PcBs. PcB bulk product
waste does not include PcBs or PcB items regulated for disposal under §761.60(a) through (c), §761.61, §761.63, or
§761.64. PcB bulk product waste includes, but is not limited to:
(1) Non-liquid bulk wastes or debris from the demolition of buildings and other man-made structures manufactured,
coated, or serviced with PcBs. PcB bulk product waste does not include debris from the demolition of buildings or other
man-made structures that is contaminated by spills from regulated PcBs which have not been disposed of, decontaminated, or otherwise cleaned up in accordance with subpart D of this part.
(2) PcB-containing wastes from the shredding of automobiles, household appliances, or industrial appliances.
(3) Plastics (such as plastic insulation from wire or cable; radio, television and computer casings; vehicle parts; or furniture
laminates); preformed or molded rubber parts and components; applied dried paints, varnishes, waxes or other similar
coatings or sealants; caulking; adhesives; paper; Galbestos; sound deadening or other types of insulation; and felt or fabric
products such as gaskets.
(4) Fluorescent light ballasts containing PcBs in the potting material.
>> PCB remediation waste means waste containing PcBs as a result of a spill, release, or other unauthorized disposal,
at the following concentrations: Materials disposed of prior to April 18, 1978, that are currently at concentrations ≥50 ppm
PcBs, regardless of the concentration of the original spill; materials which are currently at any volume or concentration
where the original source was ≥500 ppm PcBs beginning on April 18, 1978, or ≥50 ppm PcBs beginning on July 2, 1979;
and materials which are currently at any concentration if the PcBs are spilled or released from a source not authorized
for use under this part. PcB remediation waste means soil, rags, and other debris generated as a result of any PcB spill
cleanup, including, but not limited to:
(1) Environmental media containing PcBs, such as soil and gravel; dredged materials, such as sediments, settled sediment
fines, and aqueous decantate from sediment.
(2) Sewage sludge containing < 50 ppm PcBs and not in use according to §761.20(a)(4); PcB sewage sludge; commercial
or industrial sludge contaminated as the result of a spill of PcBs including sludges located in or removed from any pollution
control device; aqueous decantate from an industrial sludge.
(3) Buildings and other man-made structures (such as concrete floors, wood floors, or walls contaminated from a leaking
PcB or PcB-contaminated transformer), porous surfaces, and nonporous surfaces.
7
Disposal options for PCB Bulk Product Waste and clearance criteria for PCB Remediation Waste
designated in 40 CFR§761 are provided in Table 1.2. Options for disposal of Bulk Product Waste
include either removal of source materials, decontamination of source materials, or a risk-based
disposal method approved by EPA. The criterion for a risk-based approval is that the proposed
method will not pose an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.
As shown in Table 1.2, the EPA regulations allow PCB Remediation Waste to be managed according
to a method that is termed self-implementing on-site clean and disposal. This disposal options allows
residual levels of PCB Remediation Waste to remain in a building. The amount of residual PCBs
allowed depends on the use characteristics of the property and the disposition of the PCBs: (i) high
occupancy versus low occupancy areas, (ii) bulk concentrations versus surface loading levels, and (iii)
unrestricted land use versus a deed restriction. Although not detailed in the table, the regulations for
PCB Remediation Waste also allow for performance-based disposal and risk-based disposal methods
as approved by EPA.
tabLe 1.2 Summary of Disposal options and clearance criteria for PcB wastes Specified in code of
Federal Regulations title 40 Section 761
material
Pcb
bulk Product
waste
40 cfr§761.62
definition
disposal options
criteria
waste derived from
manufactured products
in non-liquid state,
greater than 50 ppm at
the time of disposal.
(40 cFR §761.3)
Performance-based
disposal by landfill,
incineration or
decontamination
RcRA-permitted facility
Risk-based approval
will not pose an unreasonable risk of injury to health
or the environment
high-occupancy
• <1 ppm
bulk • >1 to <10 ppm if site covered with
appropriate cap (deed restriction)
• <1 ppm
• >1 to <10 ppm if site covered with
Porous appropriate cap (deed restriction)
Pcb
remediation
waste
40 cfr§761.61(a)
waste containing
PcBs as a result of a
spill, release, or other
unauthorized disposal.
(40 cFR §761.3)
2
nonporous • <10 µg/100 cm
Self-implementing
on-site cleanup
and disposal
Low-occupancy
• <25 ppm
• >25 ppm to <50 ppm if secured by fence
bulk (deed restriction)
• >25 ppm to <100 ppm with appropriate
cap (deed restriction)
• <25 ppm
• >25 ppm to <50 ppm if secured by fence
Porous (deed restriction)
• >25 ppm to <100 ppm with appropriate
cap (deed restriction)
nonporous • <100 µg /100 cm2
8
The PCB regulations do not specify a schedule for determination of PCB-containing materials as waste
or a timeline for remediation of PCB waste. This aspect of the regulations provides the opportunity for
property owners to identify the remediation strategy that is most appropriate for a building with PCBcontaining materials. In some cases, conditions warrant control of PCB releases to the environment
and the subsequent potential for human exposure while options for permanent remedies are evaluated.
Recommendations for methods to control exposure to PCBs in building materials on an interim basis
are available from EPA (EPA, 2009b) and are also discussed in Section 3.3 and 3.4.
1.4 enVIronmentaL heaLth conteXt
In addition to accumulating in construction materials through sorption and migration, PCBs that
mobilize from building products can also be present in direct human exposure media including soil,
indoor dust, and indoor air (Coghlan et al., 2002; Herrick et al., 2007). PCBs in soil and dust are subject
to the PCB regulations for bulk product waste and remediation waste however the regulations are silent
on limits for PCBs in indoor air of buildings.
Recently, public health targets for school-year average concentrations of PCBs in the indoor air of
schools have been suggested by EPA (EPA, 2009c). As shown in Table 1.3, these suggested public health
targets range from 70 ng/m3 for children less than 2 years of age to 600 ng/m3 for high school students.
Site-specific assessments that consider local conditions such as background intake of PCBs, timelocation patterns at the school, and the mixture of PCB congeners present in the air have also been used
to derive targets for PCB concentrations in indoor air of schools (e.g., MacIntosh et al., 2011).
In some cases, measured concentrations of PCBs in indoor air of buildings with PCB-containing building
materials have exceeded the levels suggested by EPA or those derived from site-specific assessments. For
instance, indoor air concentrations of total PCBs have been reported to reach 5,000 ng/m3 in U.S. buildings
constructed with PCB-containing materials (TRC Engineers, 2010b). Likewise, concentrations greater
than 20,000 ng/m3 have been reported for buildings in Europe (Liebl et al., 2004; Schwenk et al., 2002). In
comparison, PCBs in outdoor air are generally less than 1 ng/m3 (ATSDR, 2000; Li et al., 2010).
As suggested by the preceding information, PCBs in indoor air can also be a driving force for
remediation of PCB-containing building materials, regardless of whether regulatory standards for PCBs
in bulk materials are met or not. As described in Section 3, a variety of engineering and administrative
controls are available to manage levels of PCBs in indoor air on both a permanent and interim basis.
tabLe 1.3 Public Health targets for PcBs in School Indoor Air (ng/m3) Suggested by EPA
Age 1-<2 yr
Age 2-<3 yr
70
70
Age 3-<6 yr
Age 6-<12yr
Elementary School
Age 12-<15 yr
Middle School
Age 15-<19 yr
High School
Age 19+
Adult
100
300
450
600
450
Pcb polychlorinated biphenyl ng/m nanograms per cubic meter �
* Assuming a background scenario of no significant PcB contamination in building materials and average exposure from other sources,
these concentrations should keep total exposure below the reference dose of 20 ng PcB/kg-day. �
Source: EPA, 2009ca�
3
9
1.5 Summary
PCBs are a class of compounds that had important commercial uses in the U.S. prior to their ban
under TSCA due to their association with adverse human and ecological impacts. Primarily used as a
dielectric fluid in capacitors, transformers, and other electrical equipment, PCBs were also used as a
component of some non-liquid building products including caulking, adhesives, paints, floor finishes,
fluorescent light ballasts and other items.
Over 75 million kilograms of PCBs were sold for use as plasticizers or as a component of numerous
industrial products from 1958 to 1971, thus, a large number of buildings constructed are at risk
of having PCB-containing materials. Understanding available remediation strategies for PCBcontaining building materials, therefore, is a critical issue for owners of public and private buildings.
PCBs can be introduced into building materials and media in three primary ways. First, caulk,
adhesives, and other products manufactured with PCBs are primary sources of PCBs in buildings.
Second, PCBs released from primary sources can accumulate in other building materials over time,
creating secondary sources of PCB contamination in a building. Finally, PCBs can be released from
primary and secondary sources and subsequently enter indoor air, dust, and soil.
Regulatory standards for PCBs in 40 CFR§761 establish authorized uses, disposal practices, and
allowable limits for PCBs in materials. Compliance with the unauthorized use provisions of the
regulations is an important driver of remediation programs for PCBs in building materials. Although
not addressed in the regulations, PCB concentrations in indoor air of buildings can also be a factor in
decisions to control release of PCBs from building materials.
Property owners and managers, regulatory authorities, practitioners, and other stakeholders
need information on approaches for managing PCBs in buildings. This report provides a review
of literature published on abatement and mitigation of PCBs in building materials. Methods for
managing or remediating PCBs in buildings are identified and discussed in the context of the
information available on performance, cost, and associated waste.
10
▲
2.0 summary of literature search
In accordance with the statement of work for this contract, a summary of the literature search and
results are presented in this section of the report. The summary includes a brief description of
the search methodology, a listing of PCB-containing materials identified in the literature, and an
overview of the remediation methods discussed in those reports.
2.1 aPProach
To gather information on remediation methods within the scope of this review, a comprehensive
search was conducted of all publicly available technical information from peer-reviewed scientific
and technical journals, conference proceedings, reports by the U.S. federal and state governments,
reports by academic institutions, and reports by international organizations. The search included
documents published or released as of June 2011. The documents and resources identified by the
searches were reviewed, culled, and flagged for follow-up searches as warranted. These additional
leads were investigated, thereby supplementing the initial list with new documents until a complete
survey of the current literature was obtained.
The initial literature search on PCB remediation methods focused on peer-reviewed journal articles.
The search included electronic indices such as the Science Citation Index, Web of Science, and MedLine
(Appendix A, Table A.1). Indices of scientific and technical publications and other electronic resources
were queried using multiple keywords representing four search categories; i) chemical, ii) remediation,
iii) building type, and iv) building materials.
The representative keywords are provided in
tabLe 2.1 keywords Used for Literature Search
Table 2.1.
Search category keywords
Keywords of the same search category
were connected with “OR”, and search
categories were connected with “AND”
in the search. Abstracts for non-English
articles were professionally translated
into English and evaluated to determine
whether the document warranted
complete translation.
chemical
PcBs, Polychlorinated Biphenyl
mitigation
abatement, encapsulation, excavation,
extraction, management, mitigation,
modification, remediation, treatment
building type
building material
building, construction, house, residence,
school, university
coat, exterior, floor, foam, interior, light
ballast, lighting, metal, seal, wall, wire
The grey literature such as white papers, technical reports, and presentations were also searched
and included if deemed appropriate. The grey literature search was conducted through web-based
search engines, using the key words provided in Table 2.1. In addition, searches of proceedings
from relevant scientific conferences were also conducted, including American Conference of
Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH); American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA);
American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE); American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), Air and Waste Management Association (AWMA);
International Society for Indoor Air Quality (ISIAQ); Materials Research Society; Society for
11
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC); International Society for Exposure Science
(ISES); International Society for Environmental Epidemiology (ISEE), and the annual Dioxin
conference meetings.
2.2 LIterature Search reSuLtS
In total, 92 documents were obtained. These included 11 conference proceedings, 2 PowerPoint
presentations, 34 reports of consulting firms and government agencies, 31 peer-reviewed journal
articles and 14 websites (Table 2.2). This set of literature identifies a wide variety of building materials
reported to contain PCBs, either from the time of manufacture or through sorption over time.
Numerous mitigation methods are also discussed in the literature. However, only a small number
of these documents also discussed the efficacy or costs of the mitigation methods. Evaluation of
performance for any one method is complicated by the fact that multiple mitigation methods are
often employed simultaneously to manage risks associated with PCBs in building materials. This
management practice limits the ability of the current review to identify precise descriptions of
performance for individual methods.
tabLe 2.2 List of References by Literature type
number of
Literature type
documents
references
found
conference Proceedings
11
chang, 2002; coghlan, 2002; Fragala, 2010; Hamel, 2009; Ljung, 2002;
MacIntosh, 2011; Mitchell, 2001; Novaes-card, 2010; Quinn, 2010; Scadden,
2001; tanner, 2010
Power Point Presentations
2
tEI, 2009; vanSchalkwyk, 2009
technical Reports
(consulting firms/
Government agencies)
34
Atc, 2010; EH&E, 2011a-b; EH&E, 2010a-f; EH&E, 2007a-b; NIoSH, 1975;
NRc, 1976; Ruiz, 2010; SAIc, 1992; tRc Engieers, 2010a-c; tRc Environmental, 2010; EPA, 2010a; EPA, 2007; EPA, 1976; UNEP, 1999; w&c, 2010a-f;
w&c, 2009; w&c, 2008a-c; w&c, 2007
Peer-reviewed Journal
Articles
31
websites
14
Andersson, 2004; Blfanz, 1993; Barkley, 1990; Bent, 1994; Bent, 2000;
Benthe, 1992; Bleeker, 1999; Broadhurst, 1972; Funakawa, 2002; Gabrio,
2000; Heinzow, 2007; Heinzow, 2004; Hellman, 2001; Herrick, 2010; Herrick, 2007; Herrick, 2004; Jartun, 2009a-b; kohler, 2005; kontsas, 2004;
kume, 2008; kuusisto, 2007; Liebl, 2004; MacLeod, 1981; Persson, 2005;
Pizarro, 2002; Priha, 2005; Robson, 2010; Rudel, 2008; Schwenk, 2002;
Sundahl, 1999
cDc, 1987; LPS, 2010; Nyc DoE, 2010; EPA, 2011c; EPA, 2010b-g; EPA,
2009b-c; EPA, 1993; URI, 2001
The remediation methods discussed in these documents focus on primary source materials
in buildings, including ceiling tiles, wall paints, and especially sealants. A smaller number
of reports discussed mitigation of secondary sources and techniques for mitigating potential
exposure to PCBs released from building materials to indoor air. Work plans, an important
management tool for remediation programs, were the topic of a few of the reports.
.
12
The remediation methods considered in this report are applicable to meeting regulatory standards
for PCBs and for managing potential exposures to PCBs in building materials. The methods
covered here also include both interim and permanent measures for managing PCBs in buildings.
The breadth and depth of literature available at this time is consistent with an environmental health
topic that has only recently received close attention from the regulatory community and stakeholders
in the U.S. The initial notice from EPA regarding PCBs in school buildings was issued in September
2009 (EPA, 2011a), 9 months prior to initiation of the literature search.
2.3 Pcb-contaInInG buILdInG materIaLS
A wide variety of building materials that contain PCBs are described in peer-reviewed papers
and case reports identified by the literature search. Several of the references stress the importance
of building inspections to provide a preliminary assessment of the nature and extent of PCBcontaining materials, followed by appropriate sampling and analysis of suspect materials and building
components (Fragala, 2010; TEI, 2009; W&C, 2008c). This general approach has been demonstrated
to be useful for identifying PCB-containing materials, developing inventories of materials that meet
criteria for unauthorized uses under the PCB regulations, and source materials that are important
contributors to PCBs in indoor air and other pathways of potential exposure. Procedures for building
characterization specific to determination of unauthorized use materials are outlined in Subparts N
and R of 40 CFR§761. Further treatment of evaluation procedures is outside the scope of this report
but should be considered as part of further work.
A list of building materials that have been reported to contain PCBs is provided in Table 2.3.
The building materials were grouped according to whether or not they were likely to have been
manufactured with PCBs. Building materials manufactured with PCBs would have been part of
a broad category of sales for uses that have been termed open-end or open-system applications
(EPA, 1976; NRC, 1979). The largest open-end use of PCBs was in plasticizer applications and
miscellaneous industrial products (NIOSH, 1975; EPA, 1976). Plasticizers are chemicals added to
materials to make them or keep them soft or pliable. Construction products reported to have been
manufactured with PCBs include adhesives, caulk, ceiling tiles, paint, and sealants (Broadhurst, 1972;
NIOSH, 1975; EPA, 1976; CDC, 1987).
Among measurements of PCBs identified by the literature search, caulk, applied primarily to exterior
joints, was the building material most frequently reported to contain PCBs. Caulk also had the highest
reported concentration of PCBs with levels commonly in the range of 1,000 to 100,000 ppm and
ranging up to approximately 750,000 ppm (ATC, 2010). The mixture of PCBs in caulk most frequently
consisted of Aroclor 1254 and Aroclor 1248 (EH&E, 2010f; ATC, 2010; W&C, 2007). Paint and
adhesives such as floor tile mastic were also frequently reported to contain PCBs (Bent et al., 1994; TRC
Environmental, 2010).
Porous materials such as concrete and brick were frequently reported as secondary sources of PCBs.
As noted earlier in this report, porous materials can absorb PCBs when adjacent to caulk or other
13
materials manufactured with elevated concentrations of PCBs (W&C, 2010a; W&C, 2010d; W&C,
2010e; W&C, 2010f; W&C, 2007). PCBs can transfer from secondary sources to other materials as
well, including products intended to inhibit migration of PCBs. For instance, silicone caulk applied
directly on PCB-containing caulk has been reported to absorb PCBs and in one building eventually
reached concentrations up to 4,200 ppm (W&C, 2010c; EH&E, 2007b; W&C, 2010f).
Direct human exposure media, such as indoor air, that have been reported to be impacted by PCBs
released from building materials are also noted in Table 2.3.
2.4 remedIatIon methodS
The literature search identified a wide range of remediation methods for PCBs in building materials.
Although diverse in purpose and approach, the methods can be grouped according to terminology
suggested by the EPA for environmental clean-up activities. The EPA terms that define these groups
were presented in Table 1.1.
In this report, remediation is an overarching term that encompasses removing PCBs from a building
or limiting the migration of PCBs from sources in a building. Two general approaches to remediation
are recognized here – abatement and mitigation. Abatement refers to reducing the amount of PCBs in
building materials. Mitigation is a complement to abatement and refers to controlling exposure to PCBs
released from building materials without removing PCBs from source materials in a building.
A conceptual framework for organizing the groups of remediation methods is illustrated in Figure
2.1. In this framework, abatement is distinguished from mitigation in that the objective of abatement
is to reduce the mass of PCBs or PCB-containing materials in a building, while the objective of
mitigation is to limit release of PCBs from building materials or their transfer to the environment and
locations where people may be exposed. Abatement activities involve handling, treating, or directly
contacting PCB-containing materials in a manner that removes primary and secondary source
materials from a building or lowers the amount of PCBs in building materials through chemical
degradation or extraction techniques. Mitigation actions do not involve modifying source materials,
but instead may be intended to block pathways of PCB transport, dilute concentrations of PCBs in
exposure media, or establish uses of building space that minimize exposure to building-related PCBs.
Details of the various remediation methods are described in Section 3 and a brief summary of
individual remediation methods are provided in Table 2.3.
2.4.1 abatement
In general, abatement methods are intended to provide a permanent remedy to unauthorized or
undesired uses of PCBs in building materials. A permanent remedy can be achieved by removing
PCB-containing materials from a building or reducing the amount of PCBs in a material below
the clearance criteria for residual PCBs as defined in 40 CFR§761 (see Table 1.2). A summary of
information identified on abatement achieved by source removal and source modification methods
follows.
14
tabLe 2.3 PcB containing Building Materials and Exposure Media
maximum concentration
from buildings
material
references reporting Pcb contaminated materials
Primary Source material (possibly manufactured with Pcb)
959 – 752,000 ppm
caulking (Sealant, Plaster)
(a), (b), (d), (e), (f), (g), (i), (j), (k), (l), (q), (r), (t), (w), (aa), (bb), (cc), (ff),
(ii), (jj), (kk), (ll), (mm), (nn)
Adhesives/Mastic
3.9 – 3,100 ppm
(d), (e), (g), (l), (hh), (ii), (jj)
Surface coating
140 – 255 ppm
(d), (g), (dd), (ii)
Paint
0.7 – 89,000 ppm
(a), (e), (g), (h), (u), (v), (y), (hh), (ii)
ceiling tiles
57 – 51,000 ppm
(g),(h),(l)
Up to 100% liquid PcB
(l), (jj)
Glazing
Light Ballast
1,200,000 ppm
(m)
Electric wiring
14 ppm
(g)
Secondary Source material (probably not manufactured with Pcb)
Insulation Materials
0.2 – 310 ppm
(b), (i), (l), (ee), (hh)
Backer Rod
99,000 ppm
(b)
Gaskets
4,300 ppm
(i)
170 ppm
(l)
cove Base
Polyurethane foam (furniture)
47 – 50 ppm
wood
380 ppm
Brick/Mortar/cinder Block
2.8 – 1,100 ppm
(g),(ii)
(g)
(b), (l), (y), (kk)
Asphalt
140 ppm
(k)
Stone (granite, limestone, marble, etc.)
130 ppm
(ll), (mm), (nn)
concrete
53 – 17,000 ppm
(b), (e), (g), (k), (v), (y), (ff), (kk), (mm), (nn)
non-Porous materials
Metals Surfaces
48 µg/100 cm2
(g),(k),(kk)
Door Frame
102 ppm
(hh)
Railing
70 ppm
(hh)
exposure media
Soil/Sediment/Sand
Settled Dust
Indoor Air
0.1 – 581 ppm
(a), (l), (s), (u), (bb), (kk), (ll), (mm), (nn)
120 µg/100 cm2, <1.5 - 190 ppm (l), (dd), (jj)
35 – 24,000 ng/m3
(c), (d), (e), (f), (i), (j), (l), (n), (o), (p), (w), (x), (y), (z), (ee), (ff), (gg), (ii)
references
(a) Andersson, 2004
(b) Atc, 2010
(c) Balfanz, 1993
(d) Bent, 1994
(e) Bent, 2000
(f) Benthe, 1992
(g) Bleeker, 1999
(h) cDc, 1987
(i) chang, 2002
(j) Gabrio, 2000
(k) EH&E, 2007b
(l) EH&E, 2010f
(m) EPA, 2011c
(n) Funakawa, 2002
(o) Heinzow, 2004
(p) Heinzow, 2007
(q) Hellman, 2001
(r) Herrick, 2004
(s) Herrick, 2007
(t) Herrick, 2010
(u) Jartun, 2009a
(v) Jartun, 2009b
(w) kohler, 2005
(x) kontsas, 2004
(y) kuusisto, 2007
(z) Liebl, 2004
(aa) Persson, 2005
(bb) Priha, 2005
(cc) Robson, 2010
(dd) Rudel, 2008
(ee) Schwenk, 2002
(ff) Sundahl, 1999
(gg) tRc Engineers, 2010b
(hh) tRc Engineers, 2010a
(ii) tRc Environmental,
2010
(jj) URI, 2001
(kk) w&c, 2007
(ll) w&c, 2010a
(mm) w&c, 2010c
(nn) w&c, 2010e-f
15
As shown in Figure 2.1, source removal methods include physical removal and on-site
decontamination of PCB-containing materials. Physical removal involves displacement of
bulk material that contains PCBs followed by disposal according to applicable state and federal
regulations. In the case of PCB caulking, hand tools such as utility knife, putty knife, scraper, ripping
chisel, and bush hammer are typically used to pry beads of caulk from the seams in manageable
lengths. Various types of abrasive blasting techniques are physical removal methods that have been
applied to surface coatings that contain elevated concentrations of PCBs. In both cases, the removed
caulk or surface coating is placed in sealed containers which are stored in a covered roll-off and
subsequently disposed of as hazardous waste.
In addition to physical removal of PCB-containing materials, source removal can also be
achieved through on-site decontamination. Several products and techniques for chemical
degradation of PCBs in bulk product waste and remediation waste materials are described in the
literature. In general, the products are applied to PCB-containing materials as a slurry or paste,
covered by an overlying material, and left in place for days to weeks as required by the kinetics
of the degradation reactions. Spent product and degradation products are waste byproducts of
the process.
Old fluorescent light ballasts that were manufactured with PCBs remain in use in some buildings
and their remediation constitutes a special case of source removal. Detailed source removal
procedures (clean-up and decontamination) for a leak, including management and disposal of
wastes from PCB-containing ballasts, are outlined in the PCB regulations and summarized in
Section 3.
fIGure 2.1 Framework for Methods to Remediate PcBs in Building Materials
tyPe of remedIatIon
objectIVe
aPProach
method
Source Removal
Physical removal
Abatement
Reduce the degree
or intensity of,
or eliminate
PcB-containing
building materials
Mitigation
Reduce adverse
impacts of
PcB-containing
building materials
on the building
or its occupants
Source Modification
chemical Extraction
chemical Degradation
Engineering controls
contact Encapsulation
Physical Barrier
ventilation
Air cleaning
Administrative controls
Space Assignment
work Plan and o&M Plan
16
tabLe 2.4 Description of Remediation Methods
remediation
method
abatement
approach
method
Source Removal
Physical Removal
Source
Modification
chemical Extraction
chemical Degradation
Encapsulation
Physical Barrier
Engineering
controls
mitigation
ventilation
Air cleaning
Space Assignment
Administrative
controls
work Plan and o&M
Plan
description
Remove PcB-containing building materials using
hand or mechanical tools
Apply a solvent that washes PcBs from building
materials
Treat building
building materials
treat
materialswith
withaachemical
chemicalproduct
productthat
that
transforms PCBs
intointo
lessless
hazardous
substances
transforms
PcBs in
hazardous
substances
Apply a low permeability film or sealant directly to
PcB-containing materials
Separate PcB-containing materials from other (e.g.,
occupied) areas of a building
Deliver PcB-free air to the interior of a building to
control PcB concentrations in indoor air
operate a fan-operated device equipped with
activated charcoal or other filtration media for which
PcBs have high affinity
Use risk-based criteria to assign space to occupants
of a building
Implement procedures and policies that detail how
PcBs in building materials will be managed so as not
to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or
the environment
2.4.2 mitigation
Mitigation generally refers to controlling impacts of building material-related PCBs without actually
removing PCBs from source materials. Mitigation methods can provide interim measures of control
such that PCBs in building material do not pose an unreasonable risk of injury to human health
and the environment. Accordingly, interim measures are typically planned and implemented to
provide an equivalent level of protection to permanent measures. Mitigation methods can also be a
component of activity undertaken following an abatement action or as part of a management in place
program for residual PCBs in building materials.
As described below, engineering and administrative controls implemented alone or in combination
can be effective at mitigating releases of PCBs to the environment and limiting exposure.
Engineering Controls
Engineering controls involve changes to the physical conditions of a building that reduce the magnitude
of potential uncontrolled releases of PCBs and corresponding exposure. These controls can take many
forms but are principally contact encapsulation; physical barriers; ventilation; and air cleaning.
Contact encapsulation refers to covering PCB-containing materials with an impermeable film or
sealant. The sealant serves to reduce potential for dermal contact with PCBs and to retard release of
PCB-containing materials or PCBs through weathering, mechanical degradation, or volatilization.
17
Contact encapsulation is described in the literature as a mitigation method for PCB-containing caulk,
paint, adhesive, and other materials. Numerous encapsulants are described in the literature and include
certain types of tape, sealants, and epoxies. Details about these methods are provided in Section 3.3.1.
Physical barriers constructed to separate areas with PCB-containing building materials from other areas
of a building are another type of engineering control. In some cases, physical barriers such as fences and
interior walls can be erected to prevent building occupants from coming into direct contact with PCBcontaining building materials. For example a simple plastic mesh snow fence can be placed around the
perimeter of a building façade to prevent people from approaching or contacting PCB-containing caulk
or paint on the exterior face of the building. In other cases, physical barriers can be used to minimize
transport of PCB vapors from source materials to occupied areas of a building. Barriers to control
vapor transport include sealants or foam applied to joints of building features that form interstitial
spaces which include PCB-containing materials. Examples of interstitial spaces that may enclose PCBcontaining materials include aluminum framing around the panels of a curtain wall sealed with PCB
caulk or wallboard covers over structural beams that are sealed with PCB caulk.
Ventilation with outdoor air and cleaning of indoor air are engineering controls that can be used
to modify concentrations of PCBs in indoor air that are associated with volatilization from PCBcontaining materials. Improvements or upgrades to existing ventilation systems have been shown
to be effective at lowering concentrations of PCBs in indoor air. However, the cost of heating and
cooling outdoor air can be a practical constraint on implementation of this mitigation method.
Operation of air cleaners equipped with activated charcoal filters was described as effective at
lowering PCB levels in indoor air in one report identified by the literature search (EH&E, 2010c).
Additional research is needed to evaluate the role of air cleaning as a long-term remedy for managing
exposures to building-related PCBs.
Administrative Controls
Administrative controls involve changes to the use or maintenance of a building that reduce the
magnitude of potential occupant exposures to PCBs or the likelihood of uncontrolled releases of
PCBs from source materials. A space assignment plan that places building occupants in locations
that yield exposures below established targets for indoor air or other media is an example of an
administrative control. Similarly, adoption of an operation and maintenance plan for residual
PCBs in building materials as part of an overall facility management program can be effective at
confirming the continued performance of other remediation methods. As described in Section 3,
the parameters of administrative controls can be informed by a site-specific assessment of PCB
exposure and risk.
The literature search also identified work plans as an important form of administrative control. Work
plans are designed to ensure that remediation efforts comply with all applicable rules and regulations
and that the planned remediation activities do not pose an unreasonable risk of injury to human
health and the environment.
18
Work plans are necessarily site-specific, yet all work plans strive to ensure consistent and effective
management of a remediation action for PCB-containing building materials. Specification of the flow
of work is critical for containment of PCBs during remediation. The work flow for a project typically
includes: site protection and isolation, source removal, surface cleaning, material decontamination,
inspection and testing of non-porous surfaces, source modification, testing and verification, site
restoration, project acceptance, and completion.
The key elements of a typical work plan for remediation of PCB-containing building materials are
provided in Table 2.5. The remediation methods described in Section 3 would typically appear
prominently in sections of a work plan that address scope, schedule, and procedures. More detailed
information on the major components of work plans is presented in Section 3.4.2.
Applicability of Mitigation Methods
Mitigation of impacts arising from PCBs in building materials rather than abatement of the PCBcontaining materials strikes a balance among (i) disruption of building operations, (ii) cost of
abatement, (iii) regulatory requirements and (iv) risk to health and the environment.
Disruption associated with abatement of PCB-containing building materials can favor mitigation
over abatement. As described in Sections 3.1, methods commonly used to remove or modify PCBcontaining materials can involve construction practices that generate noise, dust, gases, and require
involved containment procedures similar to those used for asbestos. Destructive procedures for
removing concrete, brick, mortar, and other substrates that have absorbed PCBs from source material
such as caulk are often the most disruptive. Abatement activities are often undertaken most efficiently
in unoccupied areas of a building and may require the relocation of building occupants. Disruption
of building operations may be greatest when a temporary space for use by building occupants,
i.e., swing space, is not available. Therefore, mitigation approaches that limit exposure to PCBs in
building materials can help organizations maintain business continuity and control costs.
tabLe 2.5 key Elements of a typical work Plan for Mitigation of PcB-containing Building Materials
case narrative
Description of the building, presentation of PcBs in building materials, and overview of
abatement goals
regulations, Permits, and
Identification of applicable regulations and corresponding permits and certifications
Qualifications
required to perform the abatement plan
Scope and Schedule
Identification of materials to be abated, overview of mitigation methods, and forecast
of work schedule
execution Plan
Description of work flow ranging from site preparations through disposal
abatement Procedures
Detailed description of procedures for source removal, source modification and, if
planned, management options
Storage and disposal
Statement of plans for storage and disposal of PcB bulk product and remediation waste
abatement completion
Identification of performance criteria and evaluation procedures for the mitigation
acceptance criteria
actions
health and Safety
Plan to ensure health and safety of abatement contractors, visitors to the site, and
occupants of the building
19
As shown in Table 1.2, the regulatory framework for PCBs includes risk-based approvals that
appear to allow PCB-containing materials to be managed in place on a temporary basis. Based on
information identified by the literature search, risk-based approvals are made on a case-by-case basis
and follow the generally accepted procedures for quantitative analyses of cancer and non-cancer risks
for PCBs.
The extent of health risk posed by leaving PCB-containing materials in place for a pre-defined
period of time is a core consideration in a decision about the degree to engage in abatement
or mitigation. The potential for direct contact with PCB bulk product waste or other PCBcontaining materials should be part of any such decision. PCB-containing materials in building
facades above ground-level often present limited opportunity for direct contact in most cases
and may be amenable to mitigation. As noted earlier in this section, physical barriers can prevent
direct contact with PCBs in building materials at ground level or indoors. Physical barriers can
limit transfer of PCB vapors to indoor locations as well. A mitigation program can also include
ventilation strategies to transfer PCBs from indoor air to outdoor air and thereby control
inhalation exposures indoors.
The response to discovery of PCB-containing materials in an elementary school provides an
illustrative example of mitigation as an interim remedy (EH&E, 2010a-f). The construction of the
approximately 65,000 square foot, single story building in 1961 included curtain walls that contained
composite panels held within aluminum framing by PCB-containing caulk. Approximately 500 linear
feet of caulk was exposed along both the interior and exterior face of the composite panels in each
classroom. Potential pathways of exposure to PCBs associated with the caulk included direct contact
with caulk inside and outside of the building as well as inhalation of PCBs volatilized to indoor air.
Children under 6 years old were moved to classrooms in a masonry addition of the school without
PCB-containing materials. Physical barriers, including bi-layer sealants, gypsum board walls, and
fences constructed over the interior and exterior caulk, prevented direct contact with the PCBcontaining material. Modifications to the ventilation system led to further control of PCB levels in
indoor air. Abatement activities were undertaken primarily when school was not in session in order
to minimize disruption of education. As a result of these combined efforts, residual PCB exposures
were brought below risk-based tolerances, disruption of the educational mission was minimized,
and costs were controlled without removing the source material or demolishing and rebuilding large
portions of the building.
20
▲
3.0 remediation methods �
The literature search identified a wide range of manual, mechanical, chemical, engineering, and
management techniques to effect source removal, source modification, and control of PCB exposure.
Each method is described in the remainder of this section following the framework for remediation
methods presented in Section 2.4. Where available, information on performance and cost is provided
as well.
3.1 Source remoVaL
3.1.1 Physical removal of bulk materials
Physical removal methods involve the direct removal of PCB-contaminated materials. Physical
removal is often the remediation approach of choice for caulk, porous materials (e.g., concrete,
bricks), paints, ceiling tiles, and other bulk materials. Physical removal is generally recognized as
an effective remediation measure, and can be performed using manual or mechanical techniques. A
summary of physical removal methods for bulk materials is provided in Table 3.1.
Manual methods are based on direct handling of PCB-containing materials by abatement contractors
or the use of hand tools. Manual methods are often favored over mechanical methods because
they typically produce substantially lower emissions of dust and debris, noise, vibration, and odor
(VanSchalkwyk, 2009). Manual methods are most applicable to discrete building materials that are
not chemically bonded to adjacent materials. For example, manual removal is often the first step
in abatement of PCB-containing caulk from around the exterior of window frames and between
concrete panels. Hand tools and direct manipulation are also useful for removing certain materials
that may absorb PCBs over time such as foam insulation, cove base, and ceiling tiles. In contrast,
manual removal methods are less amenable to PCB-containing films such as paint. A photograph
of abatement contractors in
appropriate protective measures
fIGure 3.1 Photograph of PcB-containing caulk Removal
during remediation work is
Using Hand tools
presented in Figure 3.1.
Direct bulk removal for PCBcontaining paint can include
the complete removal of all
wallboard that has been painted.
For cases where the paint cannot
be removed without damaging
the structural stability of the
external wall, a “false wall” can
be constructed over these painted
external walls to prevent any
direct contact with the existing
Source: ePa, 2010d
21
tabLe 3.1 Source Removal Methods for Abatement of PcB-containing Building Materials
method
Bulk removal
description
Remove using hand
tools
Sandblasting
Most commonly used techniques where PcB
contamination is limited to the upper 0.5 centimeters of
porous media such as concrete. Sandblasting involves
blasting fine grains of abrasive sand onto the PcB
contaminated surface to strip away surface coatings
and remove the porous material below. Shot blasting
involves shooting varying sizes of metal shot against
the surface and is more effective at bulk material
removal. the shot is recovered in the process using a
specially fitted vacuum system that separates the shot
from PcB-contaminated residue.
Shot blasting
example
utility knife, scraper, ripping
chisel, putty knife, bush hammer,
hammer and chisel
applied building materials
caulk, porous materials
(concrete, brick, granite),
non-porous materials
(metal), soil, paint
Paint, concrete
references*
(a), (b), (c), (d),
(e), (f), (g), (h),
(i), (j)
(k), (l), (e)
(k)
Bead blasting
Process of removing surface deposits by applying fine
glass beads at a high pressure without damaging the
surface.
concrete
(e)
Hydro blasting
Use high pressure (i.e. 1,000 to 6,000 pounds per
sq inch) washing of building walls, ceilings, and
equipment surfaces. High pressure water is sprayed
against the PcB contaminated surfaces, and the
wash water is then collected and disposed of. Hydro
blasting can be especially effective for removing paint
and coating layers. Under very high pressure it can
also be used to cut and remove porous media such as
concrete, but is generally less effective and results
in more waste (i.e. contaminated water) than other
available methods.
Pellets of frozen co2 are blasted against the affected
surface.
Paint, concrete
(e), (k)
Paint, caulk
(h), (j), (k)
co2 blasting
Scarification
Scarifying and scabbling are more applicable where
concrete
PcBs extend deeper into the porous material (i.e., 1
to 5 cm penetration in concrete). Scarifiers contain a
helical rotating cutting tool that is attached to a tractor
or large mobile roller and used to remove a layer of
concrete. Scabblers use small, high-pressure impact
pistons to sequentially break up the concrete. Scabblers
are generally smaller than scarifying units and have
a lower concrete removal rate, but scabblers are more
adaptable to different indoor environments. Both
devices are able to shave off from 1/16 inch to 1/8 inch
of concrete per pass.
(b), (k),(m)
Saw cutting
Process of controlled sawing, drilling, and removal
concrete, caulk
of concrete using special saws that use diamond
impregnated blades. cutting leaves a smooth finish and
utilizes water so as to not create any dust.
(b), (c), (j), (m),
Grinders
Use horizontally rotating discs to level, smooth or clean
the top surface of a concrete slab. Grinders provide
contractors with a smoother finish than scarifiers or
scabblers.
concrete
(c)
Roto-peening
Portable tool designed to remove and descale protective
coatings from steel, concrete, brick, and wood.
concrete
(e)
Scabblers
References:
a) tRc Environmental,
2010
b) tEI, 2009
c) Sundahl, 1999
d) EH&E, 2007a-b
e) w&c, 2009
f) w&c, 2010a-f
g) EH&E, 2010f
h) Bent, 1994
i) Bent, 2000
j) EPA, 2010g
k) Mitchell, 2001
(k), (m)
l) kuusisto, 2001
m) Hamel, 2009
22
painted surface (TRC Environmental, 2010). Information on other approaches to physical barriers is
provided in Section 3.3.
Mechanical methods of bulk removal include hammer drill or saw cutting, scarification,
sand blasting, bead blasting, and water blasting, with the specific method selected dependent on the
contaminated material (TEI, 2009). Removal processes that involve large power tools, such as
blasting, can be problematic, resulting in notable noise, vibration, odor, and inconvenience. To
address these limitations, VanSchalkwyk (2009) advocated relying upon material removal with
hand tools, including caulking removal, aided by chemical washing of only horizontal surfaces, and
encapsulation of all adjacent building surfaces. For caulk, direct bulk removal requires the removal of
caulk within joints and seams and, if necessary, in the adjacent building materials. The cost estimate
of caulk removal exceeds $100/linear foot of caulk (VanSchalkwyk, 2009).
Selection of the most appropriate tools for caulk removal is based on caulk properties, location, and
accessibility. EPA categorizes caulk into two types: (i) hard and brittle which is typical of aged and
weather exposed caulks and frequently seen in exterior areas, or (ii) elastic and soft, which is found
primarily in areas protected from sunlight and weather, and located indoors (EPA, 2010c-f). Material
and conditions of the adjoining structures are key elements to consider in choosing an appropriate
tool for removal of caulk. Anticipated dust and heat generation also plays an important role in
selecting the appropriate tool and method. A summary of tools and methods for removing caulk
prepared by EPA is provided in Table 3.2.
Mitigation of PCBs in secondary source materials such as brick or concrete can be more challenging
and substantially more expensive than removal of caulk and other primary source materials.
This situation is illustrated by a building in
which concrete that was adjacent to beads of
fIGure 3.2 Removal of concrete Adjacent to Former Seam
of PcB caulking Laid Between Pre-formed concrete Panels
PCB-containing caulk was found to contain
unauthorized PCB levels. Concrete in the
immediate vicinity of the caulk was identified
as PCB Remediation Waste and designated
for removal and disposal. At this building, a
½-inch by ½-inch linear section of concrete
was removed from both sides of every seam
between concrete panels that formed the façade
of the 17-story structure. The concrete sections
were removed with hand-held circular grinding
tools operated by trained laborers (see Figure
3.2). Approximately 18 miles of ¼ square inch
concrete sections were removed from the face of
the building. A hand-held HEPA vacuum was
used to capture dust generated by the cutting
tools. Personal protective equipment including
(Source: Fragala, 2010)
23
tabLe 3.2 Summary of tools and Methods for caulk Removal
tools/method
Suitability
advantages
disadvantages
Protective measures
to consider
mechanIcaL tooLS
utility knife
• Universally applicable tool, especially for cutting out
elastic and soft caulk
together with an
electrical joint cutter
• Suitable for all
smooth joint faces
• Less suitable for
working on projects
with caulk of lengths
exceeding 100 m
• Less suitable for very
hard caulk
• choice of different
blades to suit the
joint width and depth
ripping chisel
• Suitable for breaking
out or chiseling hard
caulk, especially
when working with
joint in concave
angled planes
• Less suitable for
joints with a width of
less than 5 mm
• Less suitable for
working on projects
with caulk of lengths
exceeding 100 m
Putty knife/scraper • Suitable for reworking joint faces with
shaving or scraping
• Suitable for removing
loose or crumbling
caulk
bush hammer
• Suitable for hammering away hard or
well-attached caulk
residue on hard,
robust areas
hammer and chisel • Suitable for very
hard, brittle, or wide
joints > 2 cm
• Requires great exer• Short, sturdy blade
tion in case of hard
that is easily excaulk
changeable
• Relative low output
• Handy, low weight
(linear meters of
• No dust development
caulk/hour)
in case of elastic
• Relatively high labor
caulk
costs
• Little dust when removing slightly brittle
caulk and cleaning
joint faces
• Gentle treatment of
joint faces
• General personal
protective measures
• construction of
containment Area
enclosure (if dust is
generated)
• work area decontamination
• General personal
• Removal of hard and • Quickly dulls when
protective measures
working with rough
brittle caulk: the
• construction of
joint faces made of
cutting edge can be
containment Area
concrete or other hard
moved along the joint
enclosure
materials
face with greater
• Dust aspiration at
pressure than a utility • Possible damage to
the source when
adjoining structural
knife
cleaning joint faces/
• Low dust development parts
removing loose or
in case of rough joint
crumbling caulk as
faces
described in Abatement Step 2
• Suitable for rough
joint faces
• Poor cutting action
• Small particle debris
at the joint faces
• Longer joints and
hard caulk
• No heavy dust development
• Limited to hard and
solid surfaces
• For very hard caulk
• Possible damage to
structural parts
24
tabLe 3.2 Continued
tools/method
Suitability
advantages
disadvantages
Protective measures
to consider
eLectromechanIcaL tooLS
electrical
joint
cutter with
oscillating
blade
• Universally applicable tool
for cutting out hard and soft
caulk, especially in combination with a utility knife;
suitable for all material types
of adjoining structures.
• Less suitable for removing
caulk that is difficult to access
• Not suitable for very hard caulk
electrical
• Universally applicable tool
scraper with
for cutting out hard and soft
exchangeable
caulk, especially in combiblades
nation with a utility knife
• Suitable for difficult-toaccess joint areas in corners
and along edges
• Also suitable for reworking
joint faces
• Not suitable for very hard caulk
needle
• on level areas: for broad,
hammer
shallow dummy joints and
connections joints
rotary
cutting tools
• only suitable for cutting out
the caulk
• Not suitable for reworking joint
faces
• Suitable for difficult-to-access
joint areas long edges; not
suitable for accessing corners
jigsaw with
• tool with integrated dust
exchangeable
aspiration. Use is limited to
saw blades
deep joints with free space in
accordance with blade length
• only suitable for cutting out
the caulk
• Not suitable for reworking
joint faces
• Not suitable for difficult-toaccess joint areas in corners
and along edges
diamond
sanding
device
• Electrical joint cutter with
oscillating, diamond-coated
cleaning and blade and
integrated dust aspiration
• only suitable for cleaning
joint faces
• Short, sturdy blade
that is easily exchangeable
• Handy, acceptable
weight
• Low dust volume
• typically low risk of
damage to joint faces
with careful work
• Lightweight device,
handy
• Low exertion
• Low dust volume
• Moderate exer- • General personal protective
measures
tion required
• No integrated • construction of containment Area enclosure
dust aspira• Maintain negative air
tion
pressure with induced draft
fan equipped with High
Efficiency Particulate Air
(HEPA) filters
•
Dust aspiration at the
• No integrated
source when removing
dust aspiraloose or crumbling caulk/
tion
cleaning joint faces as
described in Abatement
Step 2
• Removal of firmly at- • Higher dust
tached, hard caulk
volume; possible damage
to adjoining
structures
• Lightweight device, • Higher dust
volume
handy
• No integrated
• Low exertion
dust aspira• typically low risk
tion
of damage to joint
faces with careful
work
• Good cutting rate for • only suitable • General personal protective
measures
for joints in
semi-soft and hard
vertical planes • construction of containcaulk
ment Area enclosure
with open joint
• Integrated dust
• Maintain negative air presbackup
aspiration
sure with induced draft fan
equipped with HEPA filters
• connection of the integrated dust aspiration device
to an industrial vacuum
with HEPA filters.
• Low dust volume
compared to angle
grinder
• Integrated dust
aspiration
• Heat development and gaseous emission
production not
clarified
25
tabLe 3.2 Continued
tools/method
Suitability
advantages
disadvantages
Protective measures
to consider
chemIcaL-PhySIcaL methodS
dry ice (co2)
blasting
• Suitable for gentle reworking • Gentle on the surrounding materials
of joint faces
• Good cleaning
• Suitable for large joint
performance (Note:
lengths
In some cases, the
method cannot
completely remove
caulk)
• Good performance
for large joint
lengths
• Expensive
(especially
in combination with high
demands for
protective
measures)
• complex
requirements
for protective
measures
• Enclosure of the work area
with airtight seal, negative
pressure and controlled air
exchange, dust aspiration
at the source
• Full respirator with fresh
air supply and protective
suit
• Noise and ear protection
(noise levels range from 85
to 120 dBA, depending on
the device)
Source: EPA, 2010g
full body clothing and N95 respirators was also used to limit PCB exposure to workers (EH&E,
2007a–b). The cost of the abatement project was approximately $1.4 million, which equated to $9 per
square foot of the building and $30 per linear foot of PCB-containing caulk. Other project-related
costs, both hard and soft costs, included characterization of PCB-containing materials, disruption of
building operations, and disposal of the PCB Bulk and Remediation Waste.
Documents identified in the literature search offered little information on the costs of physical
removal methods for bulk materials. However, the costs of removing exterior PCB caulk and
contaminated porous materials, primarily concrete, using hand and mechanical tools was reported
for four buildings (Fragala, 2010). As shown in Table 3.3, the remediation cost generally increased
as the size of the building increased. The cost normalized to building size ranged between $9 to $18
per square foot of indoor building space. The variation in costs reflects many factors including the
amount and accessibility of PCB-contaminated building materials.
The impact of direct bulk removal on PCB concentrations and potential exposures for occupants and
abatement workers was discussed in two peer-reviewed papers identified by the literature search.
Sundahl (1999) examined PCB concentrations in work site air before and during remediation of PCBcontaining caulk between cement blocks. The abatement process consisted of several steps: (1) cutting
the elastic sealant with an oscillating knife, (2) grinding the concrete with a machine, (3) sawing the
concrete with a mechanical saw, and (4) cutting the concrete with a mechanical chisel. Each process was
performed together with a high capacity vacuum cleaner connected to each of the tools. The authors
reported that PCBs accounted for up to 8% of the sealant by weight. PCB concentrations up to 450 ppm
were found in the surrounding concrete. Without proper controls, PCB concentrations in indoor air
were elevated during remediation, with levels generally above the occupational exposure limit of 10
μg/m3 and sometimes over ten times higher (120 μg/m3). However, PCB levels in air were below the
occupational exposure limit when proper controls for dust and gases were in place.
26
tabLe 3.3 Remediation costs Reported by EH&E
building type
University Academic
commercial office
University office
University Academic
Source: Fragala, 2010
work Schedule
vacated due to
occupant fears
occupied
Unoccupied
occupied
building Size
(Square feet)
remediation cost ($)
cost per square foot
80,000
260,000
$1.4 Million
$3.4 Million
$18
$13
155,000
197,000
$1.4 Million
$2.4 Million
$9
$12
Similarly, Kuusisto (2007) analyzed PCB concentrations on building surfaces after PCBcontaining paint was sandblasted with silica and estimated corresponding health risks from these
concentrations. A total of sixteen wipe samples were collected after sandblasting was performed
in two Finnish industrial buildings. Airborne PCB concentrations were also measured for two
hour periods using active samplers. The total surface PCB concentrations ranged between 100 and
1,100 μg/m2. Estimated cancer risks were higher for children (1.2 x 10-4) as compared to adults and
occupational workers (1.3 x 10-5 and 1.5 x 10-5, respectively). The hazard quotients, a characterization
of non-cancer risk, ranged between 3.3 and 35 depending on the exposure scenario. Acceptable
surface concentrations (e.g., protective for 95% of the exposed population) were calculated to equal 7
μg/m2 for residential use, 65 μg/m2 for adult residential use, and 140 μg/m2 for occupational use. Pilot
cleanup experiments showed that PCB-contaminated surface dust should be removed with industrial
vacuum cleaners and washed with terpene containing liquid, as vacuuming alone did not sufficiently
clean surfaces to acceptable risk levels.
Papers and reports identified by the literature search indicate clearly that physical removal methods
are rarely used in isolation and their efficacy is rarely assessed in the absence of effects that are
attributable at least in part to complementary mitigation methods. This observation is illustrated by
the synopsis of a mitigation effort described by Bent et al. (1994, 2000) that is presented in Box 3.1.
The majority of peer-reviewed scientific papers identified by the literature search focused on
characterizing PCB exposures for abatement workers. Several of these studies were based on
occupational cohorts in Finland. Priha et al. (2005), for example, conducted a study to assess PCB
exposures and health risks among Finnish workers at nine remediation sites. As part of their job,
workers operated grinding wheels with local exhaust units for one to four hours while wearing
respirators. Personal PCB samples were collected from the breathing zone of 14 workers, while PCB
concentrations in 27 elastic sealant samples from nine buildings were also measured. Exposures were
estimated using standard algorithms to calculate lifetime average daily dose and carcinogenic risk.
The authors found that the estimated PCB exposures of workers were higher than those of the general
population, with exposures 10-fold higher than the reference dose and average dietary intake. The
calculated point estimate of excess cancer risk was 4.6×10-4 cancer cases per lifetime. Since exposure
and risk calculations did not account for the fact that workers wore respirators, however, it is likely
that risk calculations overestimated exposure and risk.
27
box 3.1 Mitigation Efforts Described by Bent et al. (1994, 2000)
In a paper by Bent et al. (2000), a mechanical approach to mitigation of PcB-containing paint was carried out in the
remediation of a German school building with PcB concentrations in indoor air of classrooms ranging from 6,000 – 7,000
ng/m3. PcBs were present in the indoor and outdoor faces of concrete, paints, heating element paints, ceiling tiles, and floor
surfaces. A total of 245 material samples were collected from remediated and control rooms, with samples from similar
sources and room types combined. one hundred material samples were analyzed for PcB contamination. tests of 30 samples
showed that 90% of the casing joints had PcB concentrations of at least 50,600 milligrams per kilograms (mg/kg), with an
average value of 85,522 (+13,863) mg/kg. the average value for other materials was lower. For example, wall paints had an
average value of 216.3 (+82.0) mg/kg. Factors such as temperature were found to affect PcB levels in air.
Primary surfaces, including the casing joints, heating element paints, and ceiling tiles, were removed manually with
cutting tools. Secondary contaminated surfaces were decontaminated using a high-pressure water method, which
delivered water at a pressure of up to 2x108 pascal to abrade PcB-contaminated surfaces. Resulting PcB-containing
sludge was disposed directly in a hazardous waste landfill. Following removal of primary and secondary sources,
remediated areas were ventilated (air exchange rates >5 per hour) and basic cleaning was performed. together, these
methods led to the successful reduction of PcB concentrations in ambient air to below 600 ng/m3. of note, a thermal
diffusion method was also tested as a method to remove PcBs from secondary contaminated surfaces. However, this
method was found to be ineffective. �
In the case study by Bent et al. (1994), one room in a school was remediated as a pilot test. this process focused on
removal of the primary PcB sources, a joint-filling material. the joint-filling material was removed using a freezing
process, where the joint-filling material was frozen with liquid nitrogen and then removed together with portions of the
masonry. other remediation measures were also performed, including cleaning, stripping of wall paint, and floor cover
removal. the average air PcB concentrations in this building was 5,500 ng/m3. PcB concentrations ranged
from 77,700.0 ± 16,339.8 mg/kg (n = 5) for the joint-filling material, 290 mg/kg for the upper Pvc floor covering,
and 3,088.0 ± 6.7 mg/kg (n = 3) for the floor adhesive. wipe samples from the walls showed surface contaminations
of 7,348.0 ± 1,488.7 µg/m2 (n = 5) related to contaminated joint-filling material. By stripping off the wall paint in
the rooms for a pilot experiment, a reduction in the surface contamination from 3,450.0 ± 410.0 µg/m2 (n = 2) to
489.0 ± 19.0 µg/m2 (n = 2) was found. together, the remediation methods lowered indoor air PcB concentrations by
73.8%, with approximately half attributable to the wall paint stripping which decreased levels by 43.6%. �
Kontsas et al. (2004) also examined Finnish worker exposures to PCBs during remediation of
prefabricated homes. In this study, 24 PCB congeners, including the ten most abundant PCBs in
elastic polysulfide sealants, were measured in the serum of 22 exposed and 21 non-exposed men.
Corresponding personal air samples were also collected. Total serum PCB concentrations (as assessed
using the 24 measured congeners) in the exposed workers ranged between 0.6 and 17.8 micrograms
per liter (μg/L). Serum PCB concentrations for ten people exceeded the Finnish upper reference limit
for occupationally non-exposed people (3 μg/L). Non-exposed workers had lower serum PCB levels,
ranging between 0.3 and 30 μg/L.
28
3.1.2 Physical removal of Light ballasts
Review of the available literature associated with PCB-containing light ballasts and light fixtures
suggests that PCB-containing light ballasts should always be considered when conducting a PCB
source identification and remediation project. According to the EPA Region 10 (1993), when a
PCB-containing light ballast fails, measures should be taken to limit or avoid personal exposure.
Detailed cleanup and decontamination procedures for a leak, including management and disposal
of wastes from PCB-containing ballasts, are outlined on EPA’s PCB laws and regulations web page
(EPA, 2010a-b).
Schools in the United States built before 1979 can potentially have fluorescent light ballasts that
contain PCBs. Failed or leaking fluorescent light ballasts may contribute to levels of PCBs in the air
and on surfaces inside school buildings. The typical life expectancy of these ballasts is 10-20 years
and EPA has seen evidence of leaking PCBs in light ballasts in schools in Oregon, North Dakota,
and Massachusetts. The capacitor in the ballast may contain PCBs and typically has 0.1 kg of PCB
fluid. Ballasts manufactured in the United States after 1978 are labeled “No PCBs”, and therefore any
unlabeled ballast from the United States should be assumed to contain PCBs (UNEP, 1999).
Several research projects show the impact of PCB-containing light fixtures on indoor PCB
concentrations (NYC DOE, 2010; MacLeod, 1981; Funakawa et al., 2002). During the New York
City school project, investigators noticed elevated indoor PCB concentrations in spaces without
PCB caulk, and identified PCB-containing ballast in lighting fixtures. After replacement of lighting
fixtures, the indoor air PCB concentration in one of the classrooms decreased from 2950 ng/m3
to 81 ng/m3. Defective PCB-containing light ballasts have been shown to emit PCBs and to be an
important source of indoor PCB contamination (MacLeod, 1981). This research demonstrated a
50-fold increase in airborne PCB concentrations after the burnout of PCB-containing ballast and
elevated PCB levels for 3-4 months after the burnout event. A field study in Japan found total PCBs
in indoor air of 26 - 110 ng/m3 for an office with PCB-containing light ballasts (Funakawa et al.,
2002). These authors also reported that mixture of PCBs in indoor air of the office was similar to the
composition of PCBs emitted from the light ballasts during chamber tests.
There are significant costs associated with PCB-containing light ballast replacement. However, there
are also significant costs and risks that may be incurred by not replacing these fixtures. A study
prepared for the Department of Energy (SAIC, 1992) evaluated four solutions for addressing PCBcontaining light ballasts and concluded that a program that is preventive in nature provides the most
economical solution. Removal of PCB-containing light fixtures benefits the indoor environmental
quality of a school by reducing potential impact of PCBs. In addition, replacement of old PCB
containing light fixtures offers a significant energy savings benefit. According to EPA (2007),
proactive replacement of PCB-containing light fixtures can reduce the potential high cost of cleanup
and relocation of students that may be associated with a ballast leak or failure. It is important to note
that Federal law requires removal and disposal of leaking PCB-containing ballasts and disposal of any
PCB-contaminated materials at an EPA-approved facility.
29
3.2 Source modIfIcatIon
Source modification based on chemical degradation or extraction of PCBs in building materials was
discussed in several peer-reviewed journal articles and conferences identified by the literature search.
Key characteristics of these methods are presented in Table 3.4 and additional information about
these methods is provided in the narrative that follows.
3.2.1 chemical degradation
Tanner (2010) discussed the Amstar dechlorination liquid, a product based on a nucleophilic
substitution reaction reported to remove chlorine from PCBs without generating toxic byproducts
or waste. This method has been shown to decontaminate steel ship bulkheads successfully and, to
a lesser extent, soil, railroad ballast materials, and bulk oil as well. For bulkheads with PCB levels
greater than 100 ppm, Amstar was shown to reduce PCB contamination by 90 – 99%. Tanner (2010)
reports that Amstar is currently being tested on painted surfaces, coated surfaces, caulks, soils and
bulk oils. However, no results from the testing were available in time for this report.
tabLe 3.4 Summary of Source Modification Methods for Abatement of PcB-containing Building Materials
method
degradation
chemical
extraction
cleaning
description
example
applied
buildings
materials
Painted
surfaces,
concrete, caulk
and other
adhesives, soil
concrete, dust,
metal surfaces,
insulation,
paints, gaskets,
soil
Porous-material
(concrete,
granite, brick)
An activated metal within a solvent system and a
thickening agent to form a paste. the technology
extracts PcBs from materials such as paints and
soils. the extracted PcBs react with the activated
metal and are degraded into by-products.
Activated Metal
treatment System
Nucleophilic substitution reaction that removes
the chlorine from the PcBs without heat.
Amstar dechlorination
liquid
Performance-based organic decontamination
solvents.
capsur® (aqueousbased), Hexane (solventaqueous solution),
kerosene, diesel, terpene
hydrocarbons, techxract®,
Aluminum Brightner
Double-wash-rinse procedure described in 40
cFR§ 761 Subpart S. 1) detergent wash, 2)
potable water rinse, 3) solvent wash, and 4)
solvent rinse.
Z-Green®, Big orange®
concrete
Industrial Degreaser
Solvent, or any solvents
in which PcBs are 5% or
more soluble
Removal of residual PcBs from non-porous
Mineral spirits, HEPA
surfaces including PcBs sorbed to settled dust vAc, commercial
cleaning agents (e.g.
Simple Green, tSP),
kerosene, diesel, terpene
hydrocarbons, pine
soap-water solution, wet
cleaning
Non-porous
material (e.g.,
metal and
glass), dust
references
(a), (b), (c)
(d)
(e), (f), (g),
(h), (i)
(h), (i)
(c), (e), (g),
(j), (k), (l)
References
a) Quinn, 2010
b) Novaes-card,
2010
c) Ruiz, 2010
d) tanner, 2010
e) tEI, 2009
f) w&c, 2009
g) Mitchell, 2001
h) Scadden, 2001
i) w&c, 2010a-f
j) EH&E, 2010f
k) Bent, 1994
l) kuusisto, 2001
30
In conference abstracts, Quinn et al. (2010) and Novaes-Card et al. (2010) discussed plans to present
results from laboratory testing of the Bimetallic Treatment System (BTS) and the activated metal
treatment system (AMTS), both of which use zero-valent magnesium (ZVM) in an acetic acid/
ethanol solution to remove and rapidly degrade PCBs in structural coating materials, such as paint.
Researchers from National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and University of Central
Florida (UCF) previously demonstrated rapid and complete dechlorination of PCBs in PCB-containing
aqueous/solvent systems, showing total degradation of up to 50 nanograms per microliter (ng/μL) of
PCB-151 in one hour (Novaes-Card et al., 2010). In paint, AMTS was shown to reduce PCB levels in
some samples from 2,797 mg/kg to 29 mg/kg in seven days. These methods removed PCBs without
destroying the polymeric lattice structure of the paint. The technical report from these researchers (Ruiz
et al., 2010) further evaluated the performance of BTS at two Department of Defense (DoD) facilities.
The performance criteria were tested for; i) distribution and adherence, ii) adherence of sealants, iii)
ease of implementation, iv) reduction of PCB concentration in treated paint to less than 50 mg/kg, v)
reduction in PCB concentration in BTS paste to less than 50 mg/kg, and vi) impact to paint adherence.
The BTS demonstrated strong performance in adherence and ease of implementation criteria. The PCB
concentration of paint and concrete surfaces were reduced to less than 50 mg/kg (starting concentration
of approximately 500 mg/kg) in approximately 1 week after application. However, after application
of BTS, the adhesive qualities and adherence of the surface layer of paint was negatively impacted. A
cost analysis for concrete and metal treatment with BTS concluded that for porous materials, such
as concrete coated with PCB-containing paint, treating the concrete and paint with BTS and reusing
the building structure is more cost effective than demolishing the building. However, for nonporous
structures (i.e., metal tank) coated with PCB-containing paint, disposing the untreated tank to a TSCA
landfill and replacing with a new tank is at least $80,000 cheaper than the alternative methods. These
cost analysis results are summarized in Table 3.5.
For porous materials, such as concrete coated with PCB-containing paint, the cost analysis shows
that it would be most cost effective to treat the concrete, paint with BTS, and reuse the building, as
tabLe 3.5 Remediation cost Analysis of concrete (porous) and Metal(non-porous) Surface coated with PcB-containing Paint
concrete building coated with Pcb-containing Paint (250 mg/kg)
Demolition, untreated and disposed of
in a tScA landfill
Demolition, treated prior to demolition
with BtS, disposed of in a
non-hazardous landfill and recycled
No demolition, structure treated
with BtS and reused.
$200,000
$180,000
$150,000
metal tank coated with Pcb-containing Paint (250 mg/kg)
Remove paint using sandblasting,
waste sent to tScA landfill and
treated with BtS and painted
Untreated and disposed of
metal tank recycled
metal tank recycled
in a tScA landfill
$25,000
$105,000
$140,000
Source: Ruiz, 2010
31
compared to demolishing the building. However for nonporous structures (metal tank) coated with
PCB-containing paint, the cost analysis shows that it would be more cost effective to just dispose of
the metal structure and replace it with a new one.
Kume et al. (2008) developed a catalytic degradation method of removing PCBs using palladium
on an activated carbon-triethylamine (Pd/C-Et3N) system at ambient hydrogen pressure and
temperature. Though this reagent has not been applied to building materials such as caulk and
concrete, the reagent was tested in paraffin oil and PCBs from capacitor and completely dechlorinated
the PCBs into biphenyls.
Barkley (1990) compared performance and cost analysis between physical removal and chemical
degradation of PCBs in concrete. Physical removal was conducted using shot-blasting, which
is a technique using steel shot to remove surface layers of contaminated concrete. The chemical
dechlorination technique used IT/SEA Marconi reagent, consisting of a polyethylene glycol-based
mixture. The warmed (heated) liquid is applied several times using a sprayer, brush or roller, and
then the reagent is allowed to remain in place undisturbed for 2-3 weeks. Forty pre- and postremediation concrete core samples were collected for each remediation method. The pre-remediation
concentration ranged from 0.13 – 65 ppm for shot-blasting and 4.6 – 60 ppm for IT/SEA Marconi
treatment. The percent reduction of PCB concentration in concrete after the shot-blasting method
ranged between 15 – 96% (average 68%) and IT/SEA Marconi treatment ranged between 11 – 97%
(average 73%). Cost analysis concluded that the IT/SEA Marconi reagent method ($0.85/sq ft) is
more cost-effective than the shot blasting method ($2.19), especially since shot-blasting is laborintensive and generates contaminated waste that requires disposal at a permitted hazardous waste
facility. The commercial availability of IT/SEA Marconi reagent is unknown.
3.2.2 chemical extraction and cleaning
Various means of cleaning PCB-contaminated materials were reported to precede source
encapsulation or follow bulk removal. Some of the methods were described in case reports while
others were identified in conference proceedings and other grey literature.
A commercial solvent designed for PCB extraction known as CAPSUR® was noted in several case
reports and presentations (W&C, 2007; W&C, 2008b; W&C, 2010c; W&C, 2010e; TEI, 2009; Mitchell
and Scadden, 2001). Woodward & Curran, Inc. (W&C) conducted several pilot studies to test the
effectiveness of a commercial product, CAPSUR®, in removing PCBs from vertical and horizontal
concrete surfaces (W&C, 2007; W&C, 2008b; W&C, 2010c; W&C, 2010e). CAPSUR® is an aqueousbased solvent with emulsifiers for the cleanup of PCBs. After removal of caulk, CAPSUR® was applied
to each joint using a hard bristle brush for approximately 5 minutes. Then the product was left for
30 minutes, followed by rinsing with clean water and vacuuming off the visible chemical from each
surface. After a single application of CAPSUR®, the post treatment PCB concentration increased
by 1.2 to 4 times. W&C (2010e) continued to test this product by applying multiple coats (up to 10
coats) of CAPSUR® with multiple rinses. However the post-treatment results were variable and did
not always reach the regulatory limit of 10 μg/100 cm2. Some of the potential issues of CAPSUR®
32
addressed by these pilot studies were: lower temperature reduces removal efficiency and insufficient
rinsing and vacuuming may have contaminated the verification samples. In addition, approximately
660 pounds of waste materials containing PCBs were produced and building occupants complained
about the odor of CAPSUR®. A carbon air filter was installed and the exhaust line was moved to the
roofline. Figure 3.3 shows the CAPSUR® application on PCB contaminated concrete conducted by
W&C (VanSchalkwyk, 2009).
Ljung et al. (2002) evaluated a new approach for extraction of PCBs from concrete based on the
concept of a “sacrificing sealant”. If efficacious, such a method could limit reliance on labor-intensive
and costly methods for bulk removal of contaminated concrete. In the in situ trials reported by
Ljung (2002), 90 small sections of contaminated sealant (caulk) were removed from linear sections
of sealant, leaving numerous small holes in each section. Each hole was filled with one of three
“sacrificing sealants”, either a modified silicone-polymer (MS-pol), polyurethane-1 (PUI), or
polyurethane-2 (PU2) sealant. The sacrificing sealants were analyzed for PCB concentrations after
remaining in the holes for one, two or three months. Results from these tests showed increasing PCB
concentrations over time for MS-pol and PUI, but not PU2. Results suggested that the “sacrificing
sealants” needed at least two months for the PCBs to migrate into the sealants. However, even after
two months, the PCB-content in the “sacrificing sealants” was low, as less than 0.1% of the original
sealant PCB concentration was found. The authors concluded that this “sacrificing sealant” method
was not effective at extracting PCBs from adjacent materials over the time frames studied.
In presentations by Scadden and Mitchell (2001), cleaning and source encapsulation methods used
to remediate PCB-contaminated concrete floors were summarized and their efficacy was examined.
Cleaning methods for PCB-contaminated concrete floors included a double-wash-rinse procedure
(Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations
fIGure 3.3 cAPSUR® application on PcB-contaminated
CFR Section 761.30(p)), which is required
concrete surface
to prepare PCB-contaminated concrete
for encapsulation. The surface washing
steps used for this remediation included
a detergent wash (1:3 ratio of water and
Z-Green, ZEP Chemical Company), a
potable water rinse, a terpene hydrocarbon
solvent wash (Big Orange Industrial
Degreaser Solvent, ZEP Chemical
Company), and a solvent rinse. The
detergent washing resulted in a cleaner
surface and resulted in generally lower PCB
concentrations on the concrete surface,
while PCB levels remained the same or
slightly higher during the solvent wash and
rinse steps. The floors were subsequently
(Source: w&c, 2009)
scrubbed with a 30% muriatic acid solution
33
to roughen the concrete surface and ensure epoxy adherence to the surface. After abrasion, the floor
was again washed. Two coats of the encapsulant (Armorseal 700 HS, Sherwin Williams Company),
hard epoxy coatings, were then applied to the concrete surface, with the coats in contrasting colors.
Cracks, bubbles, soft spots, and small pinholes were found immediately after application, likely due
to inadequate mixing of the encapsulant. These problems were repaired by grinding the affected areas
and replacing with a new epoxy topcoat, with pinholes filled with a Sherman Williams high-strength
polymer product and applying additional epoxy. No information on the effectiveness of the epoxy
coatings was presented.
Scadden and Mitchell (2001) reported the costs for the double-wash-rinse and encapsulation
activities were $23.75 per square foot of floor area. Additional costs for these procedures included
$6.85 per square foot for transportation and disposal of wastes, and $39,000 for engineering oversight
and analytical costs.
Bent et al. (1994) published two case studies of PCB remediation in German school buildings. In the
first case, a twelve-classroom school built in 1971 was remediated. Specific concerns included the
interior rooms that were finished with PCB-containing paint and windows that had PCB-containing
sealant in the window flashing area. Remediation was performed while the building was in use. Initially,
furniture was removed; walls were cleaned with a high-pressure cleaner; lamp shells were removed;
ceilings, furniture, and lamp shells were cleaned by damp cloth; drapes and curtains were washed. The
upper wax film of the PVC floor covering was removed with 4 – 5 courses of stripping. The PCB jointfilling material was subsequently covered with self-adhesive aluminum foil. Together, these cleaning
and encapsulation measures were effective, reducing indoor air PCB concentrations by 68% on average
(initial levels= 3,975.0 ± 425.3 ng/m3, n = 4; remediated levels= 1,267.3 ± 67.7 ng/m3, n = 7). Elevated
outdoor temperature was shown to increase the indoor air PCB levels, pointing to the need for both
test and control rooms to assess remediation effectiveness. Similarly, furniture and other classroom
materials were also found to be a secondary source of PCBs, as demonstrated by observed reductions
in indoor PCB concentrations when they were removed. In contrast, air handling systems (or “air
washers”) that remove dust from the ambient air using a wet process were shown to have no observable
impact on indoor air PCB concentrations.
Pizarro et al. (2002) conducted an experimental study examining the efficacy of cleaning and
subsequent encapsulation of PCB-containing concrete. Three cleaning methods and three epoxycoating systems were tested on PCB-contaminated and non-contaminated concrete core samples.
Cleaning methods included hand rubbing of a sulfuric acid-based detergent Aluminum Brightener
(Hotsy Equipment Company, Mars, PA), high pressure wash with a sodium hydroxide-based Ripper II
(Hotsy Equipment Company, Mars, PA), and a multi-step chemical sequestration system TechXtract
(Active Environmental Technologies, Mount Holly, NJ). Both the Aluminum Brightener and Ripper
II were diluted 1:5 by volume. Three epoxy-coating methods were also analyzed: (1) Plastite system
(Wisconsin Protective Coating, Green Bay, WI), (2) Chemicote system (Garland Floor Company,
Cleveland, OH), and (3) Corobond system (Sherwin-Williams, Pittsburgh, PA). Each coating method
included a primer and two layers of epoxy coatings. The performance of the cleaning methods was
34
evaluated using wipe tests before and after cleaning, with post cleaning tests conducted every other day
for two weeks and every other week for the next eight months. At the end of the eight month period,
a two-inch core sample was taken from the PCB-containing cement block. Similarly, the effectiveness
of the coating systems were tested on concrete cores, each cleaned with TechXtract prior to coating.
Surface wipe samples were collected pre- and repeatedly post-coating at the same weekly intervals. After
the eight month sampling period, pull tests were performed using an elcometer to test coating adhesion
strength, with a subsequent core sample taken for sectional analysis of PCBs.
Results for the experiments reported by Pizarro et al. (2002) showed that cleaning methods alone were an
ineffective long-term solution for containing PCBs in concrete, as cleaning removed a portion of PCBs
from only the first inch of concrete. Bleed-back of oil and PCBs occurred within days after cleaning for
all cleaning methods, which was attributed to capillary rise of the oil in which the PCBs were dissolved.
tabLe 3.6 Summary of Engineering controls Used for Mitigation of PcB-containing Building Materials.
applicable
method
technique
description
example
building media
Application of a primer
Armorseal 700 HS, Plastite
Porous material
that forms a bond with the
System, chemicote System,
2 stage
(concrete, granite,
PcB-containing material,
Perma-crete, Sikagard 62,
epoxy
brick)
followed by application of
Sikaflex-15 LM, Macropoxy 646
two layers of epoxy coating.
Porous material
Glazing
Silicone, acrylic paint
(concrete, granite,
contact
barrier
brick)
encapsulation
Application of conventional
Porous material
surface coatings to limit
Latex paint, low voc oil-based
(concrete, granite,
Paint
migration of PcBs and
paint
brick)
minimize potential for
dermal contact.
Porous material
Sealant
caulk
(concrete,
granite, brick)
Interior walls, exterior fences,
Limit migration of PcBs
Soil, external
wall, fence, and minimize potential for isolation with polyethylene sheetPhysical
wall, ceiling,
isolation dermal contact and trans- ing, self-adhesive aluminum foil,
barrier
caulk
mini-wall or false wall
port of PcB vapors.
Ventilation
air
cleaning
references
(a), (b), (c),
(d), (e)
(a)
(f),
(g), (h), (i)
(f), (g), (h),
(i)
Introduce
ventilation,
modify
existing
HvAc
Increase the outdoor air
ventilation within an interior
space to reduce concentrations of PcBs in indoor air
and associated inhalation
exposure.
Adjust temperature set points,
modify HvAc operation schedIndoor air
ule, open windows, modify
exhaust and/or supply flow,
increase air flow with axial flow
(g), (h), (i),
(j)
Filtration
Remove PcB vapors from
indoor air by absorption
onto organic carbon rich
sorption media
commercial air cleaners with
high capacity activated carbon Indoor air
filters or equivalent
(i)
References
a) tEI, 2009
b) Mitchell, 2001
c) Scadden, 2001
d) tRc Engineers, 2010b-c
e) w&c, 2010a-f
f) tRc Environmental, 2010
g) EH&E, 2010f
h) Bent, 1994
i) EH&E, 2010a-e
j) EH&E, 2007a-b
35
Bleed-back was greatest when low-pH cleaning reagents were used or when hydraulic oil was added to the
PCB-contaminated concrete after cleaning. For TechXtract, the efficiency of PCB removal was enhanced
when the concrete surface was heated, as heating accelerated the bleedback process and thus lowered
surface PCB concentrations. The authors concluded that surface heating (together with a system to capture
volatilized contaminants) is a potentially viable remediation approach.
3.3 enGIneerInG controLS
Engineering controls for mitigation of PCB-containing materials were discussed in several reports
identified by the literature search. These controls include contact encapsulation, physical barriers,
ventilation, and air cleaning. Key characteristics of these methods are provided in Table 3.6 and
additional information about these methods is provided the narrative that follows.
3.3.1 contact encapsulation
Contact encapsulation refers to application of a barrier directly on top of PCB-containing materials.
The objective of contact encapsulation is to block contact with PCBs in those materials and to impede
volatilization of PCB vapors. Documents identified by the literature search that focused on source
encapsulation included 1 peer-reviewed journal paper and 6 technical reports. These papers examined
several encapsulating methods, some of which included cleaning prior to encapsulation.
Important properties to consider when choosing a coating include elongation (i.e., its elasticity or
rigidity), dry film thickness, hardness, drying or curing time, and compatibility with existing surfaces
(W&C, 2010f). Epoxy-type coatings are widely used for PCB encapsulation. Epoxy coatings generally
consist of a three-part epoxy-polyamide coating applied in a primer layer, clad leveler, and surface
layer. Encapsulants applied to floors should include two coatings of contrasting color to indicate
when resurfacing is required due to wear (Mitchell and Scadden, 2001).
Specific products have been approved by EPA Region 1 to encapsulate exposed surface of the brick,
extending out a minimum of 4 inches from the caulk joint (EH&E, 2007a-b). Once the sealant has dried
and a visual inspection has been conducted and the necessary confirmatory sampling has been conducted
(approximately 72 hours after application), a caulking material, Sikaflex, was applied to weatherize the
building. A few groups conducted power washing of the concrete walls prior to applying the encapsulant
to ensure proper contact between the concrete (ATC, 2010; W&C, 2010f). The scrubbing head on the
hand-held pressure washer was designed with a vacuum to collect the wash water. Rubber membrane
troughs were placed below wash locations to collect wash water not collected by the scrubbing head vacuum
and ran down the building. The collected wash water was pumped to holding tanks.
A two-part system comprised of bond breaker tape and silicone caulk has been used to encapsulate
PCB-containing caulk as an interim mitigation measure. The bond breaker tape provides a PCB
barrier, and the silicone caulk provides a top coat that further limits opportunities for direct contact
with skin. Post-remediation wipe sampling of the silicone caulk sealant has shown this system to be
effective for at least 5 months (EH&E, 2011a).
36 �
37
continued
tabLe 3.7 Summary of Implementability, Effectiveness, and Aesthetics of various Encapsulants
Acrylic
Sikagard
epoxy
enviroSeal
20 sealer
Sikagardcoating
670w
Sikagardcoating
670w
An
epoxy62coating
A
water based
Acrylic
(Gray)
(clear)
(clear)
(Gray)
(B)
(A)
application
very easy to apply
Highly viscous, short pot- very liquid upon applica- Relatively easy to
Properties
(consistency of
apply, does not run
tion (runs like water),
life; able to be sprayed
on vertical surfaces a typical exterior
or painted on; effectively drips beneath masked
latex paint), does
with thin and even
coats surfaces to desired edges on masonry; fullnot run on vertical
coats; effectively
scale use would only be
extent.
surfaces with thin
coats surfaces to
practical if applied to
Rating: Fair
and even coats;
desired extent.
entire panels.
effectively coats
Rating: Good
Rating: Poor
surfaces to desired
extent.
Rating: Good
effectiveness
Somewhat effective in
Effective in contain- Effective in conEffectively contained
taining residual
containing residual PcBs ing residual PcBs
concrete with residual
PcBs < 25 ppm
> 100 ppm within
PcBs > 200 ppm at 5 to 7 > 100 ppm within 0.5”
0.5” of the joint and at 0.5-3” from the
locations inside joint, and of the joint – one wipe
residual PcBs < 25 joint – one wipe
concrete with concentra- sample reported at 0.9
ppm at 0.5-3” from sample reported at
tions > 100 ppm at 3 to 4 µg/100 cm2. Somewhat
the joint – two wipe non-detect.
locations within 0.5”
effective in containing
samples from each Rating: Good
of joint; maximum reresidual PcBs < 25 ppm
ported with result of
at 0.5-3” from the joint – interval reported
1.1 µg/100 cm2 inside
two wipe samples reported at non-detect ( 4
sample total).
joint and 3.9 µg/100 cm2 at non-detect and one
reported at 35 µg/100 cm2. Rating: Good
within 0.5” of the joint.
Rating: Good
Rating: Fair
aesthetics
cured product
cured project has
cured product appears
cured project creates a
dries evenly and
a glossy / shiny
nonporous surface coating invisible – matches the
appearance, slightly in a color true to
that is initially very glossy, appearance of adjacent
distinguishable from the chart used for
uncoated concrete.
but appears streaky and
color selection;
adjacent uncoated
discolored after long-term Rating: Good
concrete at edge of surface has a
exposure to sunlight (non
matte appearance
coated area.
Uv-resistant); however,
and a natural feel
Rating: Good
epoxy in joint would be
and finish similar
beneath caulking.
to the underlying
Rating: Fair
concrete.
Rating: Fair
ASikaflex
polyurethane
2c
sealant
(bronze)
two-part caulking; installation is
typical of exterior
caulking.
Rating: Good
PcBs reported ND
at 5 out of 6 sample locations (6th
location reported at
0.6 µg/100 cm2) –
17 out of 18 wipe
samples reported at
non-detect using a
hexane-preserved,
a saline-preserved,
and a dry wipe at
each location.
Rating: Good
typical of exterior
cured product dries
caulking; can be
evenly and in a color
color matched to
a shade lighter than
the chart used for color the current caulkselection; surface has ing color or to the
adjacent building
a matte appearance
surfaces.
and natural feel and
Rating: Good
finish similar to the
underlying concrete.
Rating: Fair
Effective in containing
residual PcBs > 100
ppm within 0.5” of the
joint – one wipe sample
reported at non-detect.
Somewhat effective
in containing residual
PcBs < 25 ppm at 0.53” from the joint – one
wipe sample reported
at 0.6 µg/100 cm2.
Rating: good
Acrylic
Sikagardcoating
550w elastocolor (Gray)
(C)
very easy to apply
(consistency of a typical exterior latex paint),
does not run on vertical
surfaces with thin and
even coats; effectively
coats surfaces to desired extent.
Rating: Good
the strip covers a
width of approximately 2 inches over the
¾-inch wide caulking
joint; multiple colors
available.
Rating: Fair
Effective in containing residual PcBs
within the joint and
the adjacent concrete
face covered by the
Sil-Span – three wipe
samples reported at
non-detect using a
hexane-preserved, a
saline-preserved, and
a dry wipe.
Rating: Good
ASil-Span
silicone sealant
(bronze)
A preformed silicone
profile strip is affixed
to the surface of the
concrete panel with
an adhesive applied
on either side of the
caulked joint.
Rating: Good
38
Acrylic
Acrylic
Acrylic
AenviroSeal
water based
20
Sikagardcoating
670w
Sikagardcoating
670w
Sikagardcoating
550w
(C)
(A)
(clear)
clear
Gray
elastocolor (Gray)
(B)
sealer
Although this
Although this
Given its good
Given the poor
product is easimplementability and ratings in each cat- product is easily implementable ily implementable
egory, this product
fair effectiveness,
and effective, the and effective, the
is recommended
this product is not
colored finish may colored finish may
recommended for use for use on concrete
not be a desirable not be a desirable
surfaces adjacent
in full-scale impleoption from an aesoption from an
to caulk joints;
mentation.
thetic standpoint.
aesthetic standfull-scale application would result in point.
minimal changes to
the appearance of
the façade.
ASikaflex
polyurethane
2c
(bronza)
sealant
Easily implementable, effective,
and color options
are available to
achieve desired
outcome. Implementation would
result in minimal
changes to the
appearance of the
façade.
ASil-Span
silicone sealant
(bronze)
Although this product
is fairly easy to
implement and is effective, the two-inch
wide colored strip
over the joint may not
be a desirable option
from an aesthetic
standpoint.
Source: w&c, 2010f
application Property notes: Good ratings were given to any product that was easy to apply in comparison to typical exterior paints or caulking materials. Fair ratings were given to any
product where application or use of the product was more complicated in comparison to easier products. Poor ratings were give to any product that is not recommended for full-scale
implementation.
effectiveness notes: Good ratings were given for products where surface wipe samples collected after application were reported as non-detect or close to non-detect for PcBs.
Fair ratings were given for products where surface wipe samples collected after application were reported at higher levels for PcBs, but achieved at least some level of contaminant
reduction. No products were given poor ratings.
aesthetic notes: Good ratings were given to any product that does not markedly change the appearance of the façade. Fair ratings were given to any product where the final appearance
of the façade would be visibly distinct from the present appearance. No products were given poor ratings.
Sikagard
epoxy
An
epoxy62coating
(Gray)
Summary &
Although the implemenrecommendations tation and aesthetics
received fair ratings, this
product is most effective
at encapsulating high
level residual PcBs and is
recommended (or a similar epoxy-type product,)
for
in the joints
after
e.g.,use
Sikadur
35) for
use in
caulking
the jointsremoval.
after caulking
removal.
tabLe 3.7 continued
According to results of a study by Pizarro et al. (2002), coatings were an effective containment solution for
PCBs in concrete (as assessed for an eight month testing period), provided that the concrete surface was
aggressively cleaned to maximize oil extraction and minimize bleedback and was patched to provide
a smooth surface prior to primer application. Aggressive cleaning is difficult to achieve on vertical
surfaces for cleaning methods that rely on extended residence time for cleaning agents on the concrete.
High-pressure washing over sufficient duration may be effective on vertical surfaces. Coatings were not
effective when free oils were present on the concrete surface prior to coating or if the concrete was heated.
In all cases, long-term monitoring plans need to be put in place to ensure the integrity of the seal.
W&C (2010f) conducted a pilot study to test seven encapsulant products based on implementability,
effectiveness, and aesthetics. With overall evaluations, they concluded the most successful product
was an epoxy coating in the joint (in direct contact with caulk) and an acrylic coating on adjacent
concrete. The summary table was reproduced from that report and is presented in Table 3.7.
3.3.2 Physical barriers
Physical barriers can be used to separate areas with PCB-containing building materials from other areas of
a building. The fundamental objective in most cases is to minimize opportunities for direct contact with
materials that contain PCBs or to mitigate emissions of PCB vapors to air. The type and configuration of
physical barriers will depend on the disposition of PCB-containing materials and how the building is used.
Fences and interior walls prevent building occupants from coming into direct contact with PCBcontaining building materials. A simple plastic mesh snow fence was placed around the perimeter
of a building façade to prevent people from approaching or contacting PCB-containing caulk on the
exterior face of a school (EH&E, 2010f). As noted in Section 3.1.1, a “false wall” was constructed
over walls covered by PCB-containing paint in order to prevent direct contact with the PCBs on the
original painted surface (TRC Environmental, 2010).
An example of a false wall or “mini-wall” is depicted in Figure 3.4. At the time this building was
constructed, PCB caulk was used to seal the joint between the aluminum framing and composite
fIGure 3.4 Panel A – Photograph of Pre-installment of Mini-walls/Panel B – Photograph of Post-installment of Mini-walls
A
B
(Source: EH&E, 2010b)
39
panels shown in Panel A of the figure. Mini-walls were constructed over the framing to prevent
opportunities for contact with the caulk and to impede transport of PCB vapors to indoor air
(Panel B of the figure). The mini-walls were constructed first by installing foil coated foam board
insulation over each section of composite panel and sealing the joint between the aluminum frames
and insulated foam board (EH&E, 2010b). The foam board and framing was then covered with wall
board, sealed, and painted to match classroom walls. New cove base was added to complete the miniwall construction.
Physical barriers have also been used as an interim measure to minimize contact with soil
contaminated by building-related PCBs. In this application, geofabric and fresh mulch have been
placed over the contaminated soil, and clean materials such as stone were used to cover the ground
surfaces (W&C, 2010d).
In addition to blocking contact, physical barriers can be used to minimize emissions or transport of
PCB vapors within a building. Barriers to control vapor transport include sealants or foam applied
to joints of building features that form interstitial spaces which include PCB-containing materials.
Examples of interstitial spaces that may enclose PCB-containing materials include aluminum framing
around the panels of a curtain wall sealed with PCB caulk or wallboard covers over structural beams
that are sealed with PCB caulk. Filling void space at select points in an interstitial space or sealing
the joints of materials that form the interstitial space will block transport pathways for PCB vapors
and lower the potential for subsequent inhalation exposure. In one school, spray foam insulation
was injected into aluminum framing adjacent to PCB caulk, and the metal-to-metal joints of an
I-beam cover were sealed with a polyurethane sealant to minimize PCB migration pathways
(EH&E, 2010c). A limitation of this approach is that the sealants have the potential to absorb PCBs over
time and could eventually qualify as PCB Remediation Waste. Monitoring interim measures such as these
should be part of an operations and maintenance plan as discussed in Section 3.4.2.
Physical barriers can also be useful for addressing a limitation of encapsulation methods. Depending
on the color of the building materials and sealant, encapsulation can be conspicuous on the exterior
face of a building. Owners and occupants of some buildings have expressed concerns over the
aesthetics of encapsulated areas. For example, a physical barrier was used as a substitute for a layer
of encapsulant in one building. After PCB-contaminated caulk was removed from metal window
joints, one or two layers of epoxy encapsulation were applied to the adjacent brick. Next, metal panels
(also called metal flashing) were constructed as an extension of the existing metal window frame and
installed over the brick surfaces to achieve the required two layers of encapsulation. The flashing was
painted to match the color scheme of the building (W&C, 2010f).
3.3.3 Ventilation
Ventilation is a means of controlling concentrations of PCBs in indoor air independent of source
removal or source modification. Ventilation is not useful for addressing requirements for PCB waste
under 40 CFR§761, but it has been shown to be effective for modifying indoor air concentrations and
lowering exposures to building-related PCBs.
40
Bent et al. (2000) included intensive ventilation to reduce indoor air levels. In this approach, PCBremediated rooms were ventilated at air exchange rates greater than 5 air exchanges per hour
for three weeks following the removal of all primary and secondary sources of contamination.
Ventilation plus other remediation procedures led to reductions of PCB concentrations in indoor air
to below 600 ng/m3 from the initial concentration of 6,000 – 7,000 ng/m3.
Ventilation was also shown to be important in a pilot study conducted in three New York City school
buildings (NYC DOE, 2010). In this study pre- and post-remediation air tests were performed with
windows closed. Pre-remediation tests showed elevated PCB concentrations in all three schools, with
mean levels in the classrooms of two schools ranging between 842 and 1,609 ng/m3. After removing
exterior PCB-containing caulk from the schools, post-remediation PCB levels in the same schools
were generally lower, as mean PCB concentrations in the classrooms ranged between 450 and 807 ng/m3.
However, all areas remained above the targets for PCBs in indoor air of schools suggested by EPA
(see Table 1.3). Following removal of PCB-containing light ballast and additional ventilation, mean
PCB concentrations in the classrooms decreased substantially (142 – 450 ng/m3), with most areas
under the EPA guidance criteria. Similar impacts of source removal and ventilation were found for
the schools’ common spaces (gyms, halls, stairways, etc.).
A school remediation project in Massachusetts also showed that ventilation can be an effective
method for reducing PCB concentrations in indoor air (EH&E, 2010a-f). Indoor air PCB levels
were attributable in part to emissions from caulk along the interior seams of composite panels
that formed portions of curtain walls along the building envelope. Increased outdoor air flow
through unit ventilators and central exhaust systems decreased concentrations by 2 to 4 times for
classrooms throughout the school. Similar results were reported for another educational building in
Massachusetts (EH&E, 2007b).
Increased ventilation has the potential to distribute PCB-containing dust from duct work or other
surfaces in a building. However, comprehensive and regular cleaning of surfaces is effective at
limiting accumulation and transport of PCB-laden dust.
3.3.4 air cleaning
The literature search identified one report which suggests that operation of air cleaners equipped with
activated charcoal can be effective at controlling concentrations of PCBs in indoor air.
Two portable air cleaners, each operating at a flow rate of 400 cubic feet per minute (cfm) were
operated in two closed classrooms for 24 hours (EH&E, 2010c). Assuming complete mixing of air
in the rooms, the air cleaners provided a recirculation rate of approximately 5.8 air exchange per
hour (h-1). The PCB concentrations in indoor air of the rooms measured during the final 8 hours
of air cleaner operation were 80 ng/m3 and 111 ng/m3. Indoor air PCB levels measured before the
air cleaner experiment were 209 ng/m3 and 364 ng/m3, respectively. Outdoor air ventilation rates
to the rooms were approximately 2 h-1 during both the baseline and air cleaner monitoring periods.
These results indicate approximately a 3-fold reduction in concentrations of PCBs in indoor air
41
attributable to operation of the air cleaners. The change in concentration was in direct proportion to
the recirculation rate of the air cleaners assuming complete mixing of air within the rooms.
Noise generated by air cleaners and the potential for ‘short-circuiting’ and incomplete mixing of
indoor air is a limitation to their use in sensitive occupied environments such as classrooms. More
information on efficacy of air cleaners in relation to noise and mixing is needed to evaluate air
cleaning as an effective means of mitigating impacts of PCB-containing building materials.
3.4 admInIStratIVe controLS
Property owners and managers have an important role in managing and mitigating impacts of PCBcontaining materials in buildings. Property owners and managers make decisions about priorities
for remediation; identify, fund, and implement mitigation plans and programs; and establish and
implement operations and maintenance plans. The administrative controls available to property
owners and managers to help fulfill their role are discussed in this section.
3.4.1 Space assignment
Considerations for establishing priorities for mitigation efforts have been outlined by EPA (EPA,
2010c) and include the following;
1. PCB concentration and conditions – building materials with the highest PCB
concentration, materials located in locations with direct sunlight, and caulk that is not
intact (e.g. peeling, brittle, cracking) have a high potential for release of PCBs,
2. Accessibility – building materials contaminated with PCBs that are easily accessible to
building occupants have the potential for direct contact (dermal or ingestion) or indirectly
through the air handling system,
3. Occupancy – areas with higher occupancy should receive a higher priority. Consideration
should be given to relocating occupants possibly affected by mitigation efforts.
The presence of potentially vulnerable populations should also be considered when establishing the
schedule of the PCB mitigation project. For instance and as shown in Table 1.2, EPA suggests that
targets for PCBs in indoor air of schools should be age dependent and generally inversely related to
age (EPA, 2009c; EH&E, 2011b). The literature contains at least one example of a case in which an
administrative approach to risk management explicitly considered the information on differential
background exposure among age groups. In that case, kindergarten students were re-assigned from
rooms in the original and PCB-containing portion of a school to a newer and non- PCB-containing
section of the building (LPS, 2010).
3.4.2 work Plans
As noted earlier, work plans and operations and maintenance (O&M) plans are important parts
of a management system for remediation of PCB-containing building materials. Work and O&M
plans offer a multitude of opportunities for administrative controls intended to mitigate impacts of
building-related PCBs on occupants and operations of a building.
42
The 40 CFR§761 regulations for PCBs require that a work plan be prepared prior to commencing any
PCB remediation actions at a building. The self-implementing procedures for removal or cleanup of
PCB-contaminated building materials require notification and submission of a work plan at least 30
days prior to the cleanup of site under 40 CFR§761.61. The plan must include a description of the
abatement and mitigation activities, proposed cleanup levels, removal and abatement procedures,
verification sampling procedures, waste storage and handling procedures, and disposal options.
Five EPA-approved PCB remediation plans were identified (ATC, 2010; W&C, 2010a-f; W&C,
2008a-c; W&C, 2007; EH&E, 2007b). Overall the remediation plans contain similar components
that are tailored to each building and project setting. The following sections summarize the common
remediation plan elements.
Case Narrative
All of the EPA-approved remediation plans identified by the literature search contain a case narrative
or background information section. The case narrative includes a description of the building,
the location of PCB-containing building materials, and an overview of abatement goals of the
remediation project. The narrative also typically contains a description of how the PCB-containing
materials were initially identified and plans for follow-up assessments designed to characterize the
extent of PCB-containing materials in each building. Photographs, building plans, and site maps are
included in the narrative to provide a complete description of the project and its surroundings.
Regulations, Permits, and Qualifications
Federal, state, and local regulations vary slightly from project to project and require close
coordination with EPA, state and local agencies. The identification of the applicable regulations and
corresponding approval required to perform each building-related PCB remediation project is critical
to a successful project. Elements of 40 CFR§761 that are critical to most work plans are:
§761.20: PCB Concentration Assumptions for Use
§761.61(a): Self-implementing on-site cleanup and disposal of PCB remediation waste
§761.61(c): Risk-based disposal approval
§761.62: Disposal of PCB Bulk Product Waste
§761.79(c) Self-implementing decontamination procedures
§761.79(h) Alternative decontamination or sampling approval
Project Scope
The project scope section of a work plan provides an overview of the project application, operation, and
goals to evaluate effectiveness. The project scope will also include the identification of materials to be
abated and a summary of mitigation methods. In addition, the specific PCB-containing materials and
remediation waste streams associated with each material will be described in this section.
Project scope may be broken down into work phases based on an overall renovation schedule
or building layout. A description of what will be required in each phase and the associated PCB
remediation waste generated by the abatement phase will also be described in this section of
43
the remediation plan. The description of the abatement work normally consists of the following
general elements: site isolation and protection, source containment and removal, material
disposal, decontamination and/or removal of PCB residues, acceptance testing and verification
and site restoration.
Assumptions and expectations of the abatement contractor that are needed to carry out the scope
of work are usually presented in the project scope section of the plan as well. Finally, criteria for
acceptance of the remediation work is presented and predicated on obtaining successful testing and
inspection results along with completing the site restoration activities.
Execution Plan
The execution plan provides a description of work flow ranging from site preparations to work
sequence. Key components of site preparation include ground cover and site isolation. Ground cover
is necessary in order to prevent debris from escaping the work zone and to protect existing facilities
and the environment. Remediation plans typically detail that the abatement contractor shall use
sufficient ground cover along areas where work will take place. Conventional water-impervious
membrane coverings secured into the ground in each respective work area are standard. The covering
is specified to extend sufficiently from the outside edge of the building or work area to capture any
loose remediation debris.
Some projects indicate that on top of the secured membrane a single layer of 6-mil polyethylene
sheeting be temporarily secured. This sheeting is designed to collect dust and debris from removal
and disposal without impacting the secured membrane in contact with the ground. Remediation
plans state that it is important for the abatement contractor to remove and control abatement debris
by HEPA vacuuming continuously throughout the work shift and again at the end of each work shift.
Site isolation is required during all phases of PCB abatement work. The remediation plan addresses
the security and access concerns as part of each project. Under certain conditions wind barriers in
conjunction with local exhaust controls (e.g., HEPA vacuums) are required to minimize airborne
dust generated during the project.
The general work sequence for the various remediation tasks is presented in each remediation plan.
The general work flow is described in the following steps: site protection, source removal, surface
cleaning, material decontamination, waste disposal, testing and verification, site restoration, project
acceptance and completion.
Remediation Procedures
PCB remediation plans provide a detailed description of procedures for source removal, source
modification and, if planned, engineering and administrative controls. Descriptions of remediation
methods identified by the literature search are provided in Section 2 and earlier portions of Section 3
in this report.
44
Storage and Disposal
Plans for storage and disposal of PCB waste are necessary components of PCB remediation plans.
PCB Bulk Product Waste (e.g., caulking), once removed, is specified to be stored for disposal in
accordance with 40 CFR§761.40 and §761.65. The work plans identified by the literature search
indicate that storage typically consists of placement into a secure and lined container or into an
appropriate temporary container (e.g., 6-mil plastic disposal bag) followed by transport into a PCB
container at the end of a work shift. Once in the container, these materials must be covered and
protected from the weather.
All containers and temporary containers must be clearly marked as PCB-containing waste materials
as required under §761.45. Lined and covered barrels containing PCB materials must be marked
with designations indicating that the PCB materials are contained in the barrel, as stated in 40 CFR
§761.65(c)(1). In addition, secondary containment such as a tarp can be used to prevent spillage onto
the floor of the storage area. When not in use, containers should remain covered by both lids and
tarps. All areas containing PCB waste must be secured.
Rags and/or cleaning materials, polyethylene sheeting, and PPE used to clean PCB-contaminated
materials shall also be disposed as PCB remediation waste or disposed of in accordance with 40
CFR§761.61(A)(5)(v).
When a container is full or the remediation work is complete the PCB remediation waste is placed
under manifest and transported to a TSCA waste disposal facility. Management of manifests, shipping
records, and certificates of disposal are part of the storage and disposal recordkeeping process.
Abatement Completion Acceptance Criteria
Identification of performance criteria and evaluation procedures for the mitigation actions are always
included in PCB remediation work plans so that final approval of the remedial work can be given when
the acceptance criteria conditions have been met. Examples of completion acceptance criteria include:
• Visual inspections to confirm that all surfaces are free of dust or debris including work areas
and that no visible PCB material identified for removal remains in place.
• Surface and bulk sampling to confirm the effectiveness of the remediation activities.
• Successful restoration of the work site to its original or an acceptable condition.
• Completed and accurate waste manifest to document that every PCB waste container
removed from the site has been disposed of properly.
Specific completion acceptance criteria are available from selected remediation work plans and
include the following examples:
• Porous surfaces in low occupancy area: bulk sample acceptance criterion will be less than or
equal to 25 ppm for total PCBs.
• Porous surfaces in high occupancy area: the bulk sample acceptance criterion will be less
than or equal to one ppm for total PCBs.
45
• Nonporous surfaces in high occupancy area: the wipe sample acceptance criterion will be
less than or equal to 10 μg/100 cm2 for total PCBs.
• Nonporous surfaces in low occupancy area: the wipe sample acceptance criterion will be
less than or equal to 100 μg/100 cm2 for total PCBs.
• Encapsulated area: the wipe sample acceptance criterion will be less than or equal to
1 μg/100 cm2 for total PCBs.
Health and Safety
Health and safety plans developed as part of PCB remediation projects are designed to ensure the
health and safety of abatement contractors, visitors to the site, and occupants of the building.
The abatement contractor typically submits a written health and safety plan that details engineering
controls, practices and procedures, protective equipment, and training that will be used to control
and minimize potential exposures and work related hazards. In addition, the plan will typically
include provisions for all relevant health and safety issues. Health and Safety plans include copies of
training materials and training records for those who will be working on-site at any time during the
abatement project.
All applicable federal and state OSHA standards and regulations to ensure worker safety must be
in effect during the PCB abatement process. The following programs should be addressed in the
contractor’s health and safety plan: Respiratory Protection, Fall Protection, Personal Protective
Equipment, Lockout/Tagout, Confined Spaces, Machine Safety, Ladder/Scaffolding Safety, Electrical
Safety, Housekeeping (slips, trips, falls), Injury Reporting, First Aid, and Fire Safety. This is not a
comprehensive list of the required programs, and the contractor is responsible for determining which
programs apply and how best to implement the required programs.
All PCB abatement work plans emphasize public safety around work areas and that the abatement
contractor needs to ensure public safety during all phases of the abatement work. Work plans
incorporate containment measures designed to protect workers, occupants, and the environment
from the release of PCB-containing materials. Containment may include, but not limited to,
draping work areas, the use of HEPA filters to collect fugitive emissions during cutting operations,
isolation of work areas from occupied areas, blocking off HVAC intakes, and using protective wind
screens and fences.
Access to PCB remediation work areas needs to be limited to ensure that only workers aware of the
abatement project will be within the work zone. Proper hygiene and decontamination procedures
must be followed to limit the potential for transferring PCB remediation waste outside the work area.
During the abatement work, work plans specify visual or quantitative assessment criteria to verify
the effectiveness of the containment controls of the abatement contractor. If observations indicate
that additional containment or engineering controls are required, the abatement contractor will be
responsible for making the necessary adjustments to the engineering controls.
46
Operations and Maintenance Plan
Continued management of building materials that contain residual amounts of PCBs is sometimes
required following the completion of a remediation program. An Operations and Maintenance
(O&M) Plan for PCBs is an effective administrative tool for managing any such materials. The details
of an O&M Plan are specific to the conditions of a site however the O&M plans reviewed as part of
the literature search have similar objectives and requirements.
The objectives of a typical O&M Plan for PCBs are to:
• Anticipate, recognize, control, and mitigate potential PCB hazards at the site.
• Ensure the continued health and safety of building occupants and the community.
• Maintain compliance with federal and local regulations pertaining to PCBs.
Activities undertaken to achieve those objectives generally include:
• Implement proactive maintenance activity reviews to identify work with the potential to
disturb PCB-containing materials.
• Maintain air and surface concentrations of PCBs below established targets.
• Specify schedules, plans and follow-up assessments.
• Evaluate all projects or work activities that may potentially disturb PCBs to determine if
precautions are required (e.g., inspection, testing, abatement).
• PCB remediation and hazardous materials training will be provide to selected building
management employees.
• Allow only qualified and trained personnel to perform activities that will potentially disturb
PCB-containing materials.
• Ensure that elements of the O&M Plan are observed.
• Provide PCB awareness training to building occupants.
• Institute a system for all contractors and vendors to report any condition or activity that
could result in the disturbance of PCBs to building management.
• Institute a system for reporting all accidental disturbances and/or releases of PCBs to
building management for evaluation and follow up.
47
▲
4.0 conclusions and recommendations �
EH&E undertook a comprehensive review of published papers, reports, and other information to
catalog and evaluate remediation methods for PCBs in building materials. This report contains a
description of existing methods for abatement of PCB-containing building materials and mitigation
of impacts from PCBs in buildings. Information on the strengths and limitations, efficacy, cost, and
byproducts of each method is presented, where available.
A multi-step, iterative process was used to ensure that all literature relevant to the scope of work was
identified. The literature search identified a total of 92 documents, including peer-reviewed papers,
conference proceedings, government and industry reports.
4.1 Pcbs In buILdInG materIaLS
PCBs are a class of compounds that had important commercial uses prior to their ban in 1976 due
to their association with adverse human and ecological impacts. Primarily used as a dielectric fluid
in capacitors, transformers, and other electrical equipment, PCBs were also used as a component of
some non-liquid construction materials and building products manufactured, including: caulking,
other sealants, adhesives, paints, floor finishes, light ballasts of fluorescent lights and other items.
Concentrations of PCBs in construction materials of many buildings have been reported to exceed
levels authorized under the applicable federal regulations (40 CFR§761). Buildings constructed
between the 1950s through late 1970s are at risk of having PCB-containing materials. Understanding
available mitigation strategies for PCB-containing buildings is a critical issue for governmental,
industry and commercial entities.
PCBs can be introduced into building materials in multiple ways. Some building materials, including
sealants, paint, and light ballasts, were manufactured to contain PCBs and can be considered primary
sources. Construction materials not intentionally manufactured with PCBs can accumulate PCBs
released from primary source materials over time. Lastly, PCBs released from building materials are
sometimes found in human exposure media such as indoor air, settled dust, and soil. The disposition
of these PCB-containing materials, occupational hazards, waste byproducts, and cost are important
considerations when evaluating and selecting a remediation method.
A list of building materials reported to contain PCBs in buildings is provided in Table 2.3. Direct
human exposure media that have been reported to be impacted by PCBs released from building
materials are also noted in the table. Caulk, applied primarily to exterior joints, was the most
frequently reported material to be a primary source of PCBs. Caulk also had the highest reported
concentration of PCBs with levels commonly in the range of 1,000 to 100,000 ppm and ranging up to
approximately 750,000 ppm (ATC, 2010). The most commonly reported mixtures of PCBs in caulk
were Aroclor 1254 and Aroclor 1248 (EH&E, 2010f; ATC, 2010; W&C, 2007). Paint and adhesives
such as floor tile mastic were also frequently reported to be primary sources of PCBs (Bent et al.,
1994; TRC Environmental, 2010). Porous materials such as concrete and brick were frequently
reported as secondary sources of PCBs.
48
4.2 remedIatIon methodS
The literature search identified a wide range of methods for managing PCBs in building materials.
Although diverse in purpose and approach, the methods can be grouped according to terminology
suggested by EPA for environmental clean-up activities. In this context, remediation is an overarching
term that encompasses removing PCBs from buildings or limiting the migration of PCBs from
sources in buildings. Abatement refers to reducing the amount of PCBs in building materials.
Mitigation is a complement to abatement and refers to controlling exposure to PCBs released from
building materials without removing PCBs from a building. A conceptual framework for organizing
the remediation methods is illustrated in Figure 2.1. The components of abatement and mitigation
shown in the diagram are discussed in the following sections.
4.2.1 abatement methods
The objective of abatement is to reduce the mass of PCBs or PCB-containing materials in a building.
Abatement consists of (i) source removal - removing primary and secondary source materials from
a building and (ii) source modification - lowering the amount of PCBs in building materials through
chemical degradation or extraction techniques. The performance of these approaches to abatement is
summarized in Table 4.2 in terms of efficacy, cost, practicality, and potential hazards. These attributes
of performance were rated on a relative scale (good, fair, poor) based on the information gathered
from the literature review and EH&E’s experience in managing remediation programs for PCBcontaining building materials.
Source removal methods include physical removal and on-site decontamination of PCBcontaining materials. Physical removal involves displacement of bulk material that contains
PCBs followed by disposal according to applicable state and federal regulations. In the case of
PCB caulking, hand tools such as utility knife, putty knife, scraper, ripping chisel, and bush
hammer are typically used to pry beads of caulk from the seams in manageable lengths. Various
types of abrasive blasting techniques are physical removal methods that have been applied
to surface coatings that contain elevated concentrations of PCBs. In both cases, the removed
caulk or surface coating is placed in sealed containers which are stored in a covered roll-off and
subsequently disposed of as hazardous waste.
In addition to physical removal of PCB-containing materials, source removal can also be achieved
through on-site decontamination. Several products and techniques for chemical degradation of PCBs
in bulk product waste and remediation waste materials are described in the literature. In general,
the products are applied to PCB-containing materials as a slurry or paste, covered by an overlying
material, and left in place for days to weeks as required by the kinetics of the degradation reactions.
Spent product and degradation products are waste byproducts of the process.
As shown in Table 4.2, source removal and decontamination methods have been demonstrated to
be effective in general at attaining compliance with regulatory requirements. Although efficacious
in many situations, source removal and modification procedures can be disruptive, expensive,
and impractical in buildings that are occupied or are scheduled for demolition in the near future.
49
Methods commonly used to remove or modify PCB-containing materials can involve construction
practices that generate noise, dust, gases, and require involved containment procedures similar to
those used for asbestos. Destructive procedures for removing concrete, brick, mortar, and other
substrates that have absorbed PCBs from source material such as caulk are often the most disruptive.
Abatement activities can be highly disruptive for populated buildings, especially when swing space
is not available. As a result, abatement is often undertaken most efficiently in unoccupied areas of
a building or when a building is vacated such as during vacation periods for schools. In addition
to being disruptive, destructive abatement methods and relocation of building occupants can be
expensive as well. Disruption and cost associated with abatement of PCB-containing building
materials can favor mitigation over abatement. Remediation approaches that control PCBs in
building materials can therefore help organizations maintain continuity and control costs. In
those circumstances, management of impacts arising from PCBs in building materials rather than
abatement of the PCB-containing materials may be preferred.
4.2.2 mitigation methods
Mitigation refers to controlling impacts of building material-related PCBs without actually
removing PCBs from source materials. The purpose of mitigation is to limit release of PCBs from
building materials or their transfer to the environment and locations where people may be exposed.
Engineering controls and administrative are two general approaches to mitigation of PCBs in
building materials. These approaches consist of actions that block pathways of PCB transport, control
concentrations of PCBs in exposure media, or establish building operations that minimize exposure
to building-related PCBs.
Mitigation methods can provide interim measures of PCB control and can also be a component of
activity undertaken following an abatement action or as part of a management in place program for
residual PCBs in building materials. Interim measures are typically planned and implemented to
provide an equivalent level of protection to permanent measures and to include activities that do not
pose an unreasonable risk of injury to human health and the environment.
Engineering and administrative controls implemented alone or in combination can be effective at
mitigating releases of PCBs to the environment and limiting exposure. The relative strengths and
weaknesses of the common mitigation methods are summarized in Table 4.2. Engineering controls
involve changes to the physical conditions of a building that reduce the magnitude of potential
uncontrolled releases of PCBs and corresponding exposure. These controls can take many forms but
are principally contact encapsulation; physical barriers; ventilation; and air cleaning.
Contact encapsulation refers to covering PCB-containing materials with an impermeable film or
sealant. The sealant serves to reduce potential for dermal contact with PCBs and to retard release of
PCB-containing materials or PCBs through weathering, mechanical degradation, or volatilization.
Contact encapsulation is described in the literature as a mitigation method for PCB-containing caulk,
paint, adhesive, and other materials. Numerous encapsulant products are described in the literature
and include certain types of tape, sealants, and epoxies.
50
TABLE 4.2 Summary of Abatement and Mitigation Methods
Type of
Remediation
Approach
Source
Removal
ABATEMENT
Method
Cost and Time
Waste
Physical
Removal
Fair – though the disposal cost is
estimated at $500 per ton (based on
Region 1 data), the manual labor to
remove the caulk can be costly, $100/
linear ft or $10-20 per square foot.
Poor – stress on landfills is a significant concern, competition for space
with other hazardous waste.
Chemical
Extraction
Fair/Poor – depending on how many
applications are required, and depth of
contamination.
Poor – large amount of chemical
containing PCBs, waste may be flammable.
Source
Modification
Chemical
Degradation
Engineering
Controls
MITIGATION
Administration
Control
Fair – cost analysis reported for paint.
The cost seems to depend on what the
structural materials are; porous or nonGood – potentially large waste but with
porous material. Reaction times vares
little PCB contamination.
and are weather dependent, resulting
in significant variability for time to
complete.
Encapsulation
Good – can be significantly less expensive and faster to implement than
source removal. In case of power wash,
the cost will increase significantly.
Physical
Barrier
Good – can be invasive.
Ventilation
Good/Fair – depends on the capacity
and efficiency of installed systems,
generally not an option in naturally
ventilated buildings.
Cleaning
Good – can be significantly less expensive and faster to implement than
source removal.
Space
Assignment
Good – typically used in combination
with other remediation methods.
Performance
(Regulatory Guidance)
Practicality
Environmental and Health Risks
Good – meets regulatory standards.
Fair/Poor – very disruptive to building occupancy.
Fair – only if proper controls are in
place, improper removal can increase
burden of PCBs in surrounding environment and within buildings, increased
exposure to remediation workers.
Fair/Poor – mixed results from W&C
reports. In most cases, require encapsulation as post treatment. Testing is required
to evaluate efficacy, requires a 761.61(c)
or 761.79(h) approval.
Good – other hazard, such as flammability and toxicity of extraction
solvent may preclude use in certain
situations.
Fair – Potential hazards associated
with extraction chemicals, need to be
managed.
Good - but has only been used in limited
locations (superfund sites). In some
cases, only been tested for waste materials (prior to disposal). Testing is required
to evaluate efficacy, requires a 761.61(c)
and/or 761.79(h) approval.
Good – however, only been tested in
limited locations.
Good – does not release any toxic
chemicals with the exception of some
loss of solvent (ethanol), less exposure
to remediation workers.
Good/Poor – Minimal waste. In some
Fair - good for interim measure only, not
Fair/Poor - for aesthetic reasons
cases, power wash of the surface is
recognized or authorized control option in
but good for practicality. May be
required prior to encapsulation, which
regulations, need long-term monitoring.
impractical for non-owner occupied
leads to large amount of waste, poten- The product/brand should be chosen care- facilities as a deed restriction would
tially contaminated.
fully, based on performance and aesthetic.
likely be required.
Good – only if proper maintenance
and management plan are in place.
NA
Fair – good for interim measure, not a
recognized or authorized control strategy
in regulations.
Good – similar to implementing
ordinary construction techniques.
Good – for interim measures.
NA
Fair - good for interim measure, not a
recognized or authorized control strategy
in regulations.
Good – provide installed systems
with sufficient capacity, may
increase energy costs.
Good – for interim measures, may
increase energy costs.
Good – however, only been tested in
limited locations.
Good – only if proper maintenance and
management plan are in place.
Good – provide existing
“swing” space.
Good – only if proper maintenance
and management plan are in place.
Fair – good for interim measure, not a
Good/Fair - Minimal waste, activated
recognized or authorized control strategy
charcoals in the air cleaners need to be in regulations. The product/brand should
replaced periodically.
be chosen carefully, based on performance
and noise level.
NA
Fair -good for interim measure only, not
recognized or authorized control option in
regulations.
Physical barriers constructed to separate areas with PCB-containing building materials from other
areas of a building is another type of engineering control. In some cases, physical barriers such as
fences and interior walls can be erected to prevent building occupants from coming into direct
contact with PCB-containing building materials. In other cases, physical barriers can be used to
minimize transport of PCB vapors from source materials to occupied areas of a building. Barriers
to control vapor transport include sealants or foam applied to joints of building features that form
interstitial spaces which include PCB-containing materials.
Ventilation with outdoor air and cleaning of indoor air are engineering controls that can be used
to modify concentrations of PCBs in indoor air that are associated with volatilization from PCBcontaining materials. Improvements or upgrades to existing ventilation systems have been shown
to be effective at lowering concentrations of PCBs in indoor air. However, the cost of heating and
cooling outdoor air can be a practical constraint on implementation of this mitigation method.
Operation of air cleaners equipped with activated charcoal filters was described as effective at
lowering PCB levels in indoor air in one report identified by the literature search.
Mitigation through administrative controls involve changes to the use or maintenance of a
building that reduce the magnitude of potential occupant exposures to PCBs or the likelihood
of uncontrolled releases of PCBs from source materials. A space assignment plan that places
building occupants in locations that yield exposures below established targets for indoor air
or other media is an example of an administrative control. Another type of administrative
control is work plans for remediation programs which serve to ensure consistent and effective
management of a remediation action for PCB-containing building materials. Similarly,
implementation of an operations and maintenance plan for residual PCBs in building materials
can be effective at evaluating the continued performance of other remediation methods. The
performance measures of administrative controls can be informed by a site-specific assessment
of PCB exposure and risk.
The selection of remediation methods should be determined on a case by case basis. Nonetheless,
most reports indicate that the greatest control of PCBs in building materials is obtained when
multiple remediation methods are employed. For example, source removal, encapsulation, and
physical barriers in combination with improved ventilation have been successful at managing
building-related PCBs in relation to both regulatory requirements and risk-based criteria.
The costs of mitigating PCB-containing building materials can be substantial, a fact which
underscores the importance of understanding site-specific conditions, establishing practical
remediation goals, and selecting the most appropriate remediation methods. The cost for abatement
and disposal of PCB-containing caulk and residual PCBs on adjacent surfaces has been reported to
range from $9 to $18 per square foot of built space. For 200,000 to 300,000 square foot buildings,
costs of mitigation have been approximately $1 million to $3 million. It is important to note that
remediation cost varies significantly by type of building and with location (Dalvit, 2011; Strychaz,
2010; USACE, 2000). The majority of the abatement and disposal cost in those situations is related
51
to removal of residual PCBs on building materials adjacent to PCB-containing caulk. Alternatives to
source removal for residual PCBs, such as a multi-component mitigation program, are expected to be
less costly. The literature search identified several cases where mitigation was effective at controlling
release of PCBs and subsequent human exposure.
4.3 recommendatIonS
This research was designed to be a review of available literature regarding mitigation methods.
During the course of this research EH&E identified several opportunities for additional data
gathering and analysis that could further the aims of U.S. EPA related to management of PCBs in
building materials. EH&E makes the following recommendations for additional research:
• Expand the scope of this review to include information sources outside of the published literature
such as EPA Regional PCB Coordinators and owners of large portfolios of property known or
expected to be impacted by PCBs. This second group would include federal organizations such as
the General Services Administration, NASA, U.S. Armed Forces and U.S. Postal Service, as well
as State property management agencies. Non-governmental groups may include universities and
commercial property owners.
• Conduct controlled and independent efficacy demonstrations and trials for a variety of chemical
degradation and extraction procedures, as well as encapsulation methods. Performance over time
and relevance to real-world conditions should be a focus of these trials.
• Characterize the long-term performance of mitigation methods, such as encapsulation. This can be
accomplished by surveying contractors with active and closed remediation projects and collecting
samples in those buildings over time.
• Develop guidance for establishing strategies to manage PCB-containing building materials and
which detail procedures for:
• characterizing the presence and condition of those materials,
• assessing potential exposure to building-related PCBs,
• selecting appropriate remediation methods, and
• designing an operations and maintenance program.
• Conduct a cost-benefit analysis of abatement versus mitigation for PCB Bulk Product Waste
(primary source materials) and PCB Remediation Waste (secondary source materials) to support
policy decisions on management of PCB-containing materials. Consider:
• amount (mass) of PCBs in primary and secondary source materials in buildings,
• disruption of building operations associated with abatement and mitigation,
• magnitude of human exposure to PCBs associated with primary and secondary source materials,
and
• efficacy , cost, and residual risk of abatement and mitigation methods.
52
▲
5.0 references �
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2000. Public Health Statement:
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs). Washington, DC, USA: ATSDR. Web Link: http://www.atsdr.cdc.
gov/toxprofiles/tp17.pdf [Accessed 19 December 2010].
Andersson M, Ottesen RT, Volden T. 2004. Building materials as a source of PCB pollution in Bergen,
Norway. Science of the Total Environment 325:139-144.
ATC Associates, Inc. (ATC). 2010. Final Completion Report for PCB Clean-Up and Disposal: One, Two
& Three Center Plaza Exterior Façade, Boston, Massachusetts prepared for MA-Center Plaza, L.L.C,
Boston, MA, USA. September 15, 2010. Woburn, MA, USA: ATC.
Balfanz E, Fuchs J, Kieper H. 1993. Sampling and analysis of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) in
indoor air due to permanently elastic sealants. Chemosphere 26(5):871-880.
Barkley NP. 1990. Update on building and structure decontamination. Control Technology
40(8):1174-1178.
Bent S, Rachor-Ebbinghaus R, Schmidt C. 2000. Decontamination of highly polychlorinated
biphenyl contaminated indoor areas by complete removal of primary and secondary sources.
Gesundheitswesen 62(2):86-92. [Original in German, translated to English.]
Bent S, Bohm K, Boschemeyer L, Gahle R, Kortmann F, Michel W, Schmidt C, Weber F. 1994.
Management of indoor air pollution by polychlorinated biphenyl compounds exemplified by two
Hagen schools. Gesundheitswesen 56(7):394-398. [Original in German, translated to English.]
Benthe C, Heinzow B, Jessen H, Mohr S, Rotard W. 1992. Polychlorinated biphenyls: indoor air
contamination due to Thiokol-rubber sealants in an office building. Chemosphere 25(7-10):14811486.
Bleeker I, Tilkes F, Fischer AB, Eikmann T. 1999. PCB contaminations of buildings and
decontamination Measures. Organohalogen Compounds 43:453-456.
Broadhurst MG. 1972. Use and replaceability of polychlorinated biphenyls. Environmental Health
Perspectives 2:81-102.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 1987. Epidemiological notes and reports PCB
contamination of ceiling tiles in public buildings – New Jersey. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly
Report (MMWR) 36(6):89-91. Web Link: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000872.
htm [Accessed 19 December 2010].
53
Chang MP, Coghlan KM, McCarthy JM. 2002. Remediating PCB-containing building products:
strategies and regulatory considerations. In: Indoor Air 2002, Proceedings: 9th International
Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Vol. 4 (Levin H, ed). Monterey, CA, USA. June 30–July
5 2002. Santa Cruz, CA, USA: Indoor Air 2002, 171-176. Web Link: http://www.pcbinschools.org/
PCB%20Remediation.pdf [Accessed 19 December 2010].
Coghlan KM, Chang MP, Jessup DS, Fragala MA, McCrillis KA, Lockhart TM. 2002. Characterization
of Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Building Materials and Exposures in the Indoor Environment. In:
Indoor Air 2002, Proceedings: 9th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Vol. 4
(Levin H, ed). Monterey, CA, USA. June 30–July 5 2002. Santa Cruz, CA, USA: Indoor Air 2002, 147–
152. Web Link: http://www.pcbinschools.org/Characterize%20pcb.pdf [Accessed 19 December 2010].
Dalvit D. 2011. Cost per Square Foot of Commercial Construction by Region. Denver, CO, USA:
EVstudio. Web Link: http://evstudio.info/cost-per-square-foot-of-commercial-construction-byregion/ [Accessed 28 June 2011].
Environmental Health & Engineering, Inc. (EH&E). 2011a. Memorandum regarding Surface Samples
Collected on April 21, 2011, Estabrook Elementary School prepared for the Town of Lexington and
Lexington Public Schools, Lexington, MA, USA. June 8, 2011. Needham, MA, USA: EH&E. Web
Link: http://lps.lexingtonma.org/cms/lib2/MA01001631/Centricity/Domain/547/Health/Surface%20
Memorandum%20060811%20_EHE%2017228_.pdf [Accessed 1 October 2011].
Environmental Health & Engineering, Inc. (EH&E). 2011b. Site-Specific Assessment for
Polychlorinated Biphenyls Estabrook School prepared for the Town of Lexington and Lexington Public
Schools, Lexington, MA, USA. February 26, 2011. Needham, MA, USA: EH&E. Web Link: http://lps.
lexingtonma.org/cms/lib2/MA01001631/Centricity/Domain/547/Health/Final%20Site-Specific%20
Assessment.pdf [Accessed 1 October 2011].
Environmental Health & Engineering, Inc. (EH&E). 2010a. Memorandum regarding Air Samples
Collected on November 11, 2010, Estabrook Elementary School prepared for the Town of Lexington
and Lexington Public Schools, Lexington, MA, USA. November 30, 2010. Needham, MA, USA:
EH&E. Web Link: http://lps.lexingtonma.org/cms/lib2/MA01001631/Centricity/Domain/547/
Health/Memo%20_EHE%2017228_.pdf [Accessed 1 October 2011].
Environmental Health & Engineering, Inc. (EH&E). 2010b. Memorandum regarding Air Samples
Collected on November 4, 2010, Estabrook Elementary School prepared for the Town of Lexington and
Lexington Public Schools, Lexington, MA, USA. November 10, 2010. Needham, MA, USA: EH&E.
Web Link: http://lps.lexingtonma.org/cms/lib2/MA01001631/Centricity/Domain/547/Health/
Estabrook_EHE%2017228_.pdf [Accessed 1 October 2011].
Environmental Health & Engineering, Inc. (EH&E). 2010c. Memorandum regarding Air Samples
Collected on October 18-19, 2010, Estabrook Elementary School prepared for the Town of Lexington
54
and Lexington Public Schools, Lexington, MA, USA. October 28, 2010. Needham, MA, USA: EH&E.
Web Link: http://lps.lexingtonma.org/cms/lib2/MA01001631/Centricity/Domain/547/Health/ �
Project%20Update%2010-28-10%20_EHE%2017228_.pdf [Accessed 1 October 2011]. �
Environmental Health & Engineering, Inc. (EH&E). 2010d. Letter regarding Remaining Emissions of
PCBs in Indoor Air of Estabrook Elementary School prepared for Lexington Public Schools and the �
Town of Lexington, Lexington, MA, USA. October 19, 2010. Needham, MA, USA: EH&E. Web Link: �
http://lps.lexingtonma.org/cms/lib2/MA01001631/Centricity/Domain/547/Health/K-1%20Wing%20 �
Assessment%20_EHE%2017228_.pdf [Accessed 1 October 2011]. �
Environmental Health & Engineering, Inc. (EH&E). 2010e. Memorandum regarding Air Samples
Collected on September 27, 2010, Estabrook Elementary School prepared for the Town of Lexington
and Lexington Public Schools, Lexington, MA, USA. October 6, 2010. Needham, MA, USA: EH&E.
Web Link: http://lps.lexingtonma.org/cms/lib2/MA01001631/Centricity/Domain/547/Health/ �
Project%20Update%2010-06-10%20_EHE%2017228_.pdf [Accessed 1 October 2011]. �
Environmental Health & Engineering, Inc. (EH&E). 2010f. Project Update, Estabrook Elementary
School, Lexington, Massachusetts prepared for the Town of Lexington, Lexington, MA, USA.
September 10, 2010. Needham, MA, USA: EH&E. Web Link: http://lps.lexingtonma.org/cms/lib2/ �
MA01001631/Centricity/Domain/547/Health/Project%20Update%2009-10-10%20_EHE%2017228_. �
pdf [Accessed 1 October 2011]. �
Environmental Health & Engineering, Inc. (EH&E). 2007a. Lederle Graduate Research Center:
Abatement Project – Tower A and Low-Rise presented to the University of Massachusetts-Amherst.
Amherst, MA, USA. May 23, 2007. Newton, MA, USA: EH&E. Web Link: http://www.ehs.umass.edu/ �
PCB%20data/UMass%20Presentation%20May%2023.pdf [Accessed 12 December 2010]. �
Environmental Health & Engineering, Inc. (EH&E). 2007b. Lederle Graduate Research Center,
Abatement Project, Tower A and Low-Rise, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA: Plan for
the Removal and Abatement of Building-Related Polychlorinated Biphenyls prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region I, Boston, MA, USA. February 21, 2007. Newton, MA,
USA: EH&E. Web Link: http://www.ehs.umass.edu/Abatement%20Plan-Prepared%20for%20 �
EPA%20by%20EH&S-2-21-07.pdf [Accessed 12 December 2010]. �
Fragala, MA. 2010. Managing the Risks of PCBs in Construction and Renovation Projects
presented at the Maine IAQ Conference. Augusta, ME, USA. March 24, 2010. Web Link: http://www. �
maineindoorair.org/Fragala%20Managing%20PCB%20Presentation%202010%20Maine%20IAQ%20 �
Handouts.pdf [Accessed 12 December 2010]. �
Funakawa M, Takada M, Mami N, Masaaki H. 2002. Volatilization of PCB from PCB-containing
ballast in fluorescent lamp and indoor PCB pollution. Journal of Environmental Chemistry �
12(3):615-620. �
55
Gabrio T, Piechotowski I, Wallenhorst T, Klett M, Cott L, Friebel P, Link B, Schwenk M. 2000. PCB
blood levels in teachers, working in PCB-contaminated schools. Chemosphere 40:1055-1062.
Hamel J, Morgenstern B. 2009. PCBs in Historic Building Materials: Showing Up in More Places Than
You Think presented at the New Hampshire College and University Compliance Assistance Cooperative
(NHC3UA) Pollution Prevention Workshop. Keene, NH, USA. March 20, 2009. Web Link: https://
nhc3ua.org/online-training/pollution-prevention-presentations-03-20-09/Final%20PCBs%20in%20
Building%20Materials%202009%20NHC3UA.pdf/view [Accessed 12 December 2010].
Heinzow B, Mohr S, Ostendorp G, Kerst M, Korner W. 2007. PCB and dioxin-like PCB in indoor
air of public buildings contaminated with different PCB sources – deriving toxicity equivalent
concentrations from standard PCB congeners. Chemosphere 67(9):1746-1753.
Heinzow B, Mohr S, Ostendorp G, Kerst M, Korner W. 2004. Dioxin-like PCB in indoor air
contaminated with different sources. External and Internal Human Exposure 66:2470-2476.
Hellman S, Puhakka J. 2001. Polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) contamination of apartment building
and its surroundings by construction block sealants. Geological Survey of Finland 32:123-127.
Herrick RF. 2010. PCBs in school-persistent chemicals, persistent problems. New Solutions
20(1):115-126.
Herrick RF, Lefkowitz DJ, Weymouth GA. 2007. Soil contamination from PCB-containing buildings.
Environmental Health Perspectives 115(2):173-175.
Herrick RF, McClean MD, Meeker JD, Baxter LK, Weymouth GA. 2004. An unrecognized
source of PCB contamination in schools and other buildings. Environmental Health Perspectives
112(10):1051-1053.
Hesse JL. 1975. Polychlorinated Biphenyl Usage and Sources of Loss to the Environment in Michigan.
In: Conference Proceedings of the National Conference on Polychlorinated Biphenyls. Chicago, IL,
USA. November 19-21, 1975. Web Link: http://books.google.com/books/reader?id=0OsJAQAAMAA
J&lr=&printsec=frontcover&output=reader [Accessed 1 July 2011].
Jartun M, Ottesen R, Volden T, Lundkvist Q. 2009a. Local sources of polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCB) in Russian and Norwegian settlements on Spitsbergen Island, Norway. Journal of Toxicology
and Environmental Health 72:284-294.
Jartun M, Ottesen R, Steinnes E, Volden T. 2009b. Painted surfaces—important sources of
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) contamination to the urban and marine environment.
Environmental Pollution 157:295-302.
56
Kohler M, Tremp J, Zennegg M, Seiler C, Minder-Kohler S, Beck M, Lienemann P, Wegmann
L, Schmid P. 2005. Joint sealants: an overlooked diffuse source of polychlorinated biphenyls in
buildings. Environmental Science and Technology 39:1967-1973.
Kontsas H, Pekari K, Riala R, Back B, Rantio T, Priha E. 2004. Worker exposure to
polychlorinated biphenyls in elastic polysulphide sealant renovation. The Annals of Occupational
Hygiene 48(1):51-55.
Kume A, Monguchi Y, Hattori K, Nagase H, Sajiki H. 2008. Pd/C-catalyzed practical degradation of
PCBs at room temperature. Applied Catalysis B: Environmental 81(3-4):274-282.
Kuusisto S, Lindroos O, Rantio T, Priha E, Tuhkanen T. 2007. PCB contaminated dust on indoor
surfaces—health risks and acceptable surface concentrations in residential and occupational settings.
Chemosphere 67(6):1194-1201.
Lexington Public Schools (LPS). 2010. Update on Estabrook Environmental Concerns, Superintendent
of Schools, Lexington Public Schools (LPS). October 14, 2010. Web Link: http://lps.lexingtonma.org/
Current/Healthandsafety/Estabrook/Superintendent%27s%20Estabrook%20Update%20Letter%20
10_14_10.pdf [Accessed 12 December 2010].
Li Y, Harner T, Liu L, Zhang Z, Ren N, Jia H, Ma J, Sverko E. 2010. Polychlorinated biphenyls in
global air and surface soil: distributions, air–soil exchange, and fractionation effect. Environmental
Science & Technology 44:2784-2790.
Liebl B, Schettgen T, Kerscher G, Broding HC, Otto A, Angerer J, Drexler H. 2004. Evidence for
increased internal exposure to lower chlorinated polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) in pupils attending
a contaminated school. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health 207(4):315-324.
Ljung M, Maria Olsson M, Tolstoy N. 2002. Research and Development in Sanitation Technology for
PCB-Containing Sealants presented at Building Physics 2002 - 6th Nordic Symposium – Session 19:
Building Design and Technology 1. Trondheim, Norway. June 17-19, 2002.
MacIntosh DL, Minegishi T, Allen JG, Levin-Schwartz Y, McCarthy JF, Stewart JH, Coghlan
KM. 2011. Risk Assessment for PCBs in Indoor Air of Schools at Indoor Air 2011: The 12th
International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate. Austin, TX, USA. June 5-10, 2011.
Web Link: http://www.abstractsonline.com/Plan/ViewAbstract.aspx?sKey=dab0b12b-98a8-4fc6addf-7ab1c6656856&cKey=abadbfc7-1761-4d01-8929-b0061efacbd6&mKey={F53D1928-C445406FA24B-297CA9654D92} [Accessed 6 June 2011].
MacLeod KE. 1981. Polychlorinated biphenyls in indoor air. Environmental Science & Technology
15(8):926-928.
57
Mitchell SJ, Scadden RA. 2001. PCB Decontamination Methods for Achieving TSCA Compliance During
Facility Decommissioning Projects: Technical Paper #0102 presented at the NDIA 27th Environmental
Symposium and Exhibition. Austin, TX, USA. April 25, 2001. Web Link: http://www.westonsolutions.com/
about/news_pubs/tech_papers/MitchellNDIA01.pdf [Accessed 12 December 2010].
Moglia D, Smith A, MacIntosh DL, Somers, JL. 2006. Prevalence and implementation of IAQ
programs in U.S. schools. Environmental Health Perspectives 114:141-146.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). 1975. November 3. Current
Intelligence Bulletin, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs). Washington, DC, USA: NIOSH. Web Link:
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/78127_7.html#table3 [Accessed 12 December 2010].
National Research Council (NRC). 1979. Polychlorinated biphenyls. A Report Prepared by the
Committee on the Assessment of Polychlorinated Biphenyls in the Environment, Environmental
Studies Board. Washington, DC, USA: National Academies of Sciences.
New York City Department of Education (NYC DOE). 2010. Pilot Study Test Results 2010 – Updated
as of 5/27/2011, New York City Department of Education (NYC DOE). May 27, 2011. Web Link: http://
source.nycsca.org/pdf/epa/PilotStudyTestResults2010.pdf [Accessed 1 July 2011].
Novaes-Card SE, Maloney PR, Saitta EH, Geiger CL, Clausen CA. 2010. Magnesium and Acetic
Acid/Ethanol Solution for Degradation of Polychlorinated Biphenyls: From Laboratory Kinetics
to Application presented at the Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds, Eighth
International Conference. Monterey, CA, USA. May 21-24, 2010. Web Link: http://www.battelle.org/
conferences/chlorinated/prel_progm.pdf [Accessed 12 December 2010].
Persson NJ, Pettersen H, Ishaq R, Axelman J, Bandh C, Broman D, Zubuhr Y, Hammar T. 2005.
Polychlorinated biphenyls in polysulfide sealants—occurrence and emission from a landfill station.
Environmental Pollution 138(1):18-27.
Pizarro GEL, Dzombak DA, Smith JR. 2002. Evaluation of cleaning and coating techniques for PCBcontaminated concrete. Environmental Progress 21(1):47-56.
Priha E, Rantio T, Riala R, Back B, Oksa P. 2005. Quantitative risk assessment in relation to
occupational exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls in the removal of old sealants from buildings.
Scandinavian Journal of Work and Environmental Health 31 Suppl 2:43-48.
Quinn J, Clausen C, Geiger C, Captain J, Ruiz N, O’Hara S, Krug T. 2010. Application of a Bimetallic
Solvent Paste Technology for PCB Removal from Older Structures on DoD Facilities presented at the
Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds, Eighth International Conference. Monterey,
CA, USA. May 21-24, 2010.Web Link: http://www.battelle.org/conferences/chlorinated/prel_progm.
pdf [Accessed 12 December 2010].
58
Rall DP. 1975. Introductory Remarks – Session I: Health Effects and Human Exposure. In:
Conference Proceedings of the National Conference on Polychlorinated Biphenyls. Chicago, IL,
USA. November 19-21, 1975.
Robson M, Melymuk L, Csiszar SA, Giang A, Diamond ML, Helm PA. 2010. Continuing sources of
PCBs: the significance of building sealants. Environment International 36(6):506-513.
Rudel RA, Seryak LM, Brody JG. 2008. PCB-containing wood floor finish is a likely source of elevated
PCBs in residents’ blood, household air and dust: a case study of exposure. Environmental Health 7:2.
Ruiz N, Krug T, O’Hara S, Quinn J, Clausen C, Geiger C, Captain J. 2010. Application of a Bimetallic
Treatment System (BTS) for PCB Removal from Older Structures on DoD Facilities (Technical Report
TR-2352-ENV) prepared for Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center (NAVFAC ESC) and
Environmental Security Technology Certification Program. November 2010. Port Hueneme, CA,
USA: NAVFAC ESC. Web Link: https://portal.navfac.navy.mil/portal/page/portal/docs/doc_store_
pub/tr-2352-env.pdf [Accessed 1 July, 2011]
Scadden RA, Mitchell SJ. 2001. A Case Study of the Continued Use of PCB-Contaminated Concrete
Through Implementation of the 40 CFR 76130(p) Use Authorization: Technical Paper #0204 presented
at the 10th Annual RCS National Convention. Austin, TX, USA. October 2001. Web Link: http://www.
westonsolutions.com/about/news_pubs/tech_papers/ScaddenRCS2001.pdf [Accessed 12 December 2010].
Schwenk M, Gabrio T, Papkeb O, Wallenhorst T. 2002. Human biomonitoring of polychlorinated
biphenyls and polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and dibenzofuranes in teachers working in a PCB
contaminated school. Chemosphere 47(2):229-233.
Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). 1992. Remediation Plan for Fluorescent
Light Fixtures Containing Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) prepared for Oak Ridge K-25 Site. April
30, 1992. Oak Ridge, TE, USA: SAIC. Web Link: http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/176786uaECFV/webviewable/176786.pdf [Accessed 12 December 2010].
Staiff DC, Quinby GE, Spencer DL, Starr HG, Jr. 1974. Polychlorinated biphenyl emission from
fluorescent lamp ballasts. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination & Toxicology 12(4):455-463.
Strychaz SJ, ed. 2010. Square Foot Building Costs: Commercial, Industrial, Institutional. Chatsworth,
CA, USA: Saylor Publications, Inc. Web Link: http://www.saylor.com/lacosts/#Commercial,%20
Industrial,%20Institutional [Accessed 6 June 2011].
Sundahl M, Sikander E, Ek-Olausson B, Hjorthage A, Rosell L, Tornevall M. 1999. Determinations of
PCB within a project to develop cleanup methods for PCB-containing elastic sealant used in outdoor
joints between concrete blocks in buildings. Journal of Environmental Monitoring 1(4):383-387.
59
Tanner DM. 2010. It Situ Remediation of PCBs without Toxic Byproducts, Paper #13 presented at the
AWMA International Conference on Thermal Treatment Technologies & Hazardous Waste Combustors.
San Francisco, CA, USA. May 17-20, 2010. Web Link: http://secure.awma.org/presentations/IT3_
HWC10/Papers/a13.pdf [Accessed 19 December 2010].
TRC Engineers, Inc. (TRC Engineers). 2010a. PCB Pilot Study Bulk Building Material Sampling
Results: Draft Summary Report prepared for New York City School Construction Authority. October
14, 2010. New York, NY, USA: TRC Engineers. Web Link: http://source.nycsca.org/pdf/epa/
BulkBuildingMaterialSamplingSummaryReport.pdf [Accessed 19 December 2010].
TRC Engineers, Inc. (TRC Engineers). 2010b. PCB Pilot Study Pre-Remedial Baseline Air Sampling
Results: Draft Summary Report prepared for New York City School Construction Authority. August
18, 2010. New York, NY, USA: TRC Engineers. Web Link: http://source.nycsca.org/pdf/epa/Pre-Reme
dialBslnAirSampleResultsDraftRpt08-20-10.pdf [Accessed 19 December 2010].
TRC Engineers, Inc. (TRC Engineers). 2010c. Remedial Investigation Work Plan for the New York City
School Construction Authority Pilot Study to Address PCB Caulk in New York City School Buildings,
EPA Consent Agreement and Final Order, Docket Number: TSCA-02-2010-9201 prepared for New
York City School Construction Authority. April 19, 2010. New York, NY, USA: TRC Engineers. Web
Link: http://www.pcbinschools.org/RIWP%20Final%20Draft%20.pdf [Accessed 19 December 2010].
TRC Environmental Corporation (TRC Environmental). 2010. Removal and Abatement Plan: New
Bedford High School Building Interior PCB Removal & Abatement Plan prepared for City of New Bedford,
Department of Environmental Stewardship. March 2010. Lowell, MA, USA: TRC Environmental. Web
Link: http://www.newbedford-ma.gov/McCoy/2010/L2010-078.pdf [Accessed 19 December 2010].
Triumvirate Environmental Inc. (TEI). 2009. PCBs in Building Materials: Liabilities & Remediation
presented at TEI EPA Inspection Preparedness/PCB Update Roundtable. Somerville, MA, USA.
December 16, 2009. Web Link: http://www.triumvirate.com/epa-inspection-preparedness-pcbupdate/ [Accessed 19 December 2010].
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2000. March 30. Civil Works Construction Cost Index
System (CWCCIS) – Tables Revised as of 30 September 2010: EM 1110-2-1304. Washington, DC, USA:
Department of the Army. Web Link: http://140.194.76.129/publications/eng-manuals/em1110-21304/EC_1110-2-1304_2011Mar.pdf [Accessed 19 December 2010].
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2008. September. 2003 CBECS Detailed Tables.
Washington, DC, USA: U.S. Department of Energy. Web Link: http://www.eia.gov/emeu/cbecs/
cbecs2003/detailed_tables_2003/detailed_tables_2003.html [Accessed 1 July 2011].
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011a. June 30. PCBs in Caulk in Older Buildings.
Washington, DC, USA: EPA. Web link: http://www.epa.gov/pcbsincaulk/ [1 July 2011].
60
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011b. March 30. Terms of Environment: Glossary,
Abbreviations and Acronyms. Washington, DC, USA: EPA. Web Link: http://www.epa.gov/
OCEPAterms/ [Accessed 6 June 2011].
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 2. 2011c. February 28. EPA Inspection for
PCB-Containing Lighting Ballasts PS 306 in Brooklyn, New York. New York, NY, USA: EPA, Region
2. Web link: http://www.epa.gov/region2/pcbs/ps306results.html [Accessed 6 June 2011].
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010a. December 29. Polychlorinated Biphenyls: Proper
Maintenance, Removal, and Disposal of PCB-Containing Fluorescent Light Ballasts. Washington, DC,
USA: EPA. Web Link: http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/tsd/pcbs/pubs/ballasts.htm#ballast12
[Accessed 12 December 2010].
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010b. October 12. Polychlorinated Biphenyls: Laws
and Regulations. Washington, DC, USA: EPA. Web Link: http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/tsd/
pcbs/pubs/laws.htm [Accessed 12 December 2010].
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010c. April 21. Steps to Safe Renovation and
Abatement of Buildings That Have PCB-Containing Caulk – Abatement Step 1: Prepare an Abatement
Strategy. Washington, DC, USA: EPA. Web Link: http://www.epa.gov/pcbsincaulk/guide/guidesect4a.htm [Accessed 12 December 2010].
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010d. October 20. Steps to Safe Renovation and
Abatement of Buildings That Have PCB-Containing Caulk – Abatement Step 2: Conduct Removal and
Abatement Activities. Washington, DC, USA: EPA. Web Link: http://www.epa.gov/pcbsincaulk/guide/
guide-sect4b.htm [Accessed 12 December 2010].
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010e. April 21. Steps to Safe Renovation and
Abatement of Buildings That Have PCB-Containing Caulk – Abatement Step 3: Handling, Storing, and
Disposing of Wastes. Washington, DC, USA: EPA. Web Link: http://www.epa.gov/pcbsincaulk/guide/
guide-sect4c.htm [Accessed 12 December 2010].
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010f. April 21. Steps to Safe Renovation and
Abatement of Buildings That Have PCB-Containing Caulk – Abatement Step 4: Prepare and Maintain
Documentation. Washington, DC, USA: EPA. Web Link: http://www.epa.gov/pcbsincaulk/guide/
guide-sect4d.htm [Accessed 12 December 2010].
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010g. April 21. Steps to Safe Renovation and
Abatement of Buildings That Have PCB-Containing Caulk – Appendix: Summary of Tools and Methods
for Caulk Removal. Washington, DC, USA: EPA. Web Link: http://www.epa.gov/pcbsincaulk/guide/
guideappendix.htm [Accessed 12 December 2010].
61
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009a. October 2. PCB Exposure Estimation Tool.
Washington, DC, USA: EPA. Web Link: www.pcbinschools.org/PCBs-SchoolsDose_10-2-09_v1-1.xls
[Accessed 12 December 2010].
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009b. October. Current Best Practice for PCBs in Caulk
Fact Sheet – Interim Measures for Assessing Risk and Taking Action to Reduce Exposures. Washington, DC,
USA: EPA. Web Link: http://www.epa.gov/pcbsincaulk/maxconcentrations.htm [Accessed 1 July 2011].
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009c. September 25. Public Health Levels for PCBs
in Indoor School Air. Washington, DC, USA: EPA. Web Link: http://www.epa.gov/pcbsincaulk/
maxconcentrations.htm [Accessed 12 December 2010].
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2007. Energy Star® Building Upgrade Manual.
Washington, DC, USA: EPA. Web Link: http://www.energystar.gov/ia/business/EPA_BUM_Full.pdf
[Accessed 12 December 2010].
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1993. PCBs in fluorescent light fixtures, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Air and Toxics Division; U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1976. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976;
15 USC (C. 53) 2601-2692. Title I – Control of Toxic Substances (40 CFR Parts 700-766). Part 761
– Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, and use
prohibitions. Washington, DC, USA: EPA. Web Link: http://www.epa.gov/regulations/laws/tsca.html
[Accessed 19 December 2010].
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 1999. August. Guidelines for the Identification of
PCBs and Materials Containing PCBs. UNEP Chemicals: Geneva, Switzerland. Web Link: http://www.
chem.unep.ch/Publications/pdf/GuidIdPCB.pdf [Accessed 19 December 2010].
University of Rhode Island (URI). 2001. March 9. Press Release – Phase II Suspected Materials
Testing Results. Kingston, RI, USA: URI Department of Communications/ News Bureau. Web Link:
http://www.uri.edu/news/releases/html/chafee-phaseII.htm [Accessed 19 December 2010].
VanSchalkwyk W. 2009. Managing PCBs in Our Infrastructure presented at Triumvirate Environmental
Inc. (TEI) Roundtable Series: PCBs in Building Caulk: A Primer. Somerville, MA, USA. October 20, 2009.
Web Link: http://www.triumvirate.com/pcbs-in-caulk-roundtable [Accessed 12 December 2010].
Woodard & Curran Inc. (W&C). 2010a. PCB Remediation Final Completion Report, Stone-Davis
Hall, Wellesley College, Wellesley, MA prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I,
Boston, MA, USA. December 7, 2010. Andover, MA, USA: W&C.
62
Woodard & Curran Inc. (W&C). 2010b. Approval Modification Request No.2, Addendum 1, Soil
Remediation Plan – Buildings A, B, C, Peabody Terrace Housing Facility, 900 Memorial Drive,
Cambridge, MA prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I, Boston, MA, USA.
November 18, 2010. Andover, MA, USA: W&C.
Woodard & Curran Inc. (W&C). 2010c. PCB Remediation Plan, Southwest Residential Area Concourse
Replacement Project, University of Massachusetts - Amherst Campus prepared for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region I, Boston, MA, USA. June 25, 2010. Andover, MA, USA: W&C.
Woodard & Curran Inc. (W&C). 2010d. Final Completion Report – PCB Remediation: MIT W85
Westgate Housing Complex, Cambridge, MA prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region I, Boston, MA, USA. March 2010. Andover, MA, USA: W&C.
Woodard & Curran Inc. (W&C). 2010e. PCB Remediation Plan, Building B, C, X – Harvard
University, Cambridge, MA prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I, Boston,
MA, USA. April 2010. Andover, MA, USA: W&C.
Woodard & Curran Inc. (W&C). 2010f. Peabody Terrace Façade Project – PCB Remediation Plan,
Building A – Harvard University, Cambridge, MA prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region I, Boston, MA, USA. February 2010. Andover, MA, USA: W&C.
Woodard & Curran Inc. (W&C). 2009. PCBs in Caulking: Real Site Data and Recent EPA
Developments. Andover, MA, USA: W&C.
Woodard & Curran Inc. (W&C). 2008a. PCBs in Common Building Materials – What Every Building
Owner Should Know. September 17 2008. Andover, MA, USA: W&C.
Woodard & Curran Inc. (W&C). 2008b. Long Term Monitoring and Maintenance Plan, W85 Westgate
Housing Facility, Cambridge, MA prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I,
Boston, MA, USA. July 2008. Andover, MA, USA: W&C.
Woodard & Curran Inc. (W&C). 2008c. Full Scale Pilot Test Report and Revised PCB Remediation
Plan, MIT W85 Westgate Housing Facility, Cambridge, MA prepared for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region I, Boston, MA, USA. February 27, 2008. Andover, MA, USA: W&C.
Woodard & Curran Inc. (W&C). 2007. Self-Implementing Cleanup and Disposal Plan,
Decontamination Plan, and request for Risk-Based Disposal, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region I, Boston, MA, USA. October 2, 2007. Andover, MA, USA: W&C.
63
▲
aPPEndiX a �
tabLe a.1 Electronic Indices of Scientific and technical Publications Queried
name
Publisher
description/reason for Inclusion
MEDLINE
National Library of
Medicine
Identify studies published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals with focus on clinical
medicine in the United States. MEDLINE is searchable on the web via PubMed.
Infotrieve®
Infotrieve, Inc.
Identify studies published in pre-reviewed scholarly journals, conference proceedings and government documents. A global full-service information management
company – including contents of almost 150 of the leading scientific, technical, and
medical publishers.
ScienceDirect®
Elsevier
Identify studies published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals not covered in MEDLINE.
coverage is more international than MEDLINE.
Pascal
wolters kluwer Health/
ovID
capture European literature not otherwise included medically oriented databases –
basic science, environmental health, chemistry, and biology.
web of Science
thomson Reuters
International coverage of the scientific and biomedical literature, including over
10,000 journals worldwide and over 110,000 conference proceedings.
®
BIoSIS Previews® thomson Reuters
Identify original research reports and reviews in biological and biomedical areas, as
well as content summaries, books, and meeting abstracts. this is the world's most
comprehensive reference database for life science research.
Enviroline®
Dialog
International coverage of periodicals particularly focused on the environment.
British Library
British Library
Access to British Library catalogue, including millions of books and journals online.
Also, “Inside conferences” – complete coverage of conference literature.
NtIS
National technical
Information Service
covers primarily U.S. federal government-sponsored technical reports from agencies
including the EPA, DoE, and HUD, with some coverage of state and local documents.
Also includes technical reports from certain agencies in other countries including
Japan, the Uk, Germany and France.
oStI
DoE office of Scientific International scientific and technical research literature.
and technical Information
EPA Publications
office
US Environmental
Protection Agency
Primarily covers US environmental regulations, proposed rulings, governmentsponsored technical reports, etc.
ERIc
Educational Resources
Information center
Database with access to more than 1.3 million bibliographic records of journal articles,
books, research syntheses, conference papers, technical reports, and policy papers.
Ec Research
and Ec Joint
Research centre
European commission
captures Ec literature, including latest advances in research, with access to Europa
and coRDIS databases.
UN Documentation: Research
Guide
United Nations
United Nations documentation, including reports, resolutions and meeting records.
International scientific and technical research literature focusing on various environmental and human health issues.
wHo
world Health
organization
Indentify wHo documents and research access to wHoLIS (wHo Library and Information Networks for knowledge) database.
64